BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD
CC 117 of 2010
Between:
Sanjay Thota, S/o. T. Anil Kumar
R/o. Flat No. 407, Classic Enclave
6-3-668/17, Durga Nagar
Punjagutta, Hyderabad. *** Complainant
And
1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr. Bayyraju Rama Raju
O/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/5A,
III Floor Amogh Plaza,
Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016.. *** O.P. No. 1
2. State Bank of India
Rep. by its Branch Manager
Khairatabad Branch
Progressive Towers
Hyderabad.
3. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Arun Kumar Shah
Office at : Maytas Hill County
Bachupally, Hyderabad. *** Ops 2 & 3
CC 32 of 2011
Between:
1) Gorrela Poleru
S/o. Late Krishnamma
2) Dr. Gorrela Harsha
S/o. Gorrela Poleru
Both R/o. 501, Minakshi Park Side Apartment
Yella Reddy Guda, Srinagar Colony
Hyderabad. *** Complainants
And
1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
(formerly known as
Rep. by its Managing Director
Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju
S/o. Mr. Satyanarayana Raju
O/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/5A,
III Floor Amogh Plaza,
Begumpet, Hyderabad. *** O.P. No. 1
2. State Bank of India
Yella Reddy Guda Branch
Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.
Rep. by its Branch Manager, *** O.P. No. 2
CC 51 of 2011
Between:
C. Manav, S/o. Bhaskara Rao
Rep. by GPA Smt. C. Venkata Ramana
W/o. C. Bhaskara Rao
Pent House, Nandanavanam
24/A, Vengal Rao Nagar
Hyderabad. *** Complainant
And
1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Vimal Kishore Kaushik
S/o. Sadanand Shastry
O/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/5A,
III Floor Amogh Plaza,
Begumpet, Hyderabad. *** O.P. No. 1
2. State Bank of India
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
RACTC, Hyderabad Zonal Office
3rd Floor ‘Patny Centre,
Secunderabad. *** O.P. No. 2
CC 14 of 2010
Between:
1) Sandeep Khurana
S/o. Ramesh Chander Khurana
2) Smt. Sarika Khurana
W/o. Sandeep Khurana
R/o. 501, Block-2B,
SMR Vinay Acropolis, White Fields,
Opp. Jayberi Silicon Valley
Kondapur, Hyderabad *** Complainants
And
1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd.
(Formerly known as Maytas Hill County P. Ltd.)
Rep. by its nominee Teja Pratap Raju
S/o. Hari Prasad Raju
O/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/5A,
III Floor Amogh Plaza,
Begumpet, Hyderabad *** O.P. No. 1
2) Teja Pratap Raju
S/o. Hari Prasad Raju
O/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/5A,
III Floor Amogh Plaza,
Begumpet, Hyderabad *** O.P. No. 2
3) State Bank of India
Rep. by its Asst. General Manager,
RACTC, , Administrative Wing-I
3rd Floor ‘Patny Centre,
Secunderabad.
4. The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
(Operations & Credit)
Bank Street, Koti,
Hyderabad. *** Ops 3 & 4
CC 53 of 2011
Between:
Lokesh Kumar Kosaraju
S/o. Venkateshwara Rao
Rep. by GPA Smt. K. Saraswathi
R/o. Flat No. 83, Shandilya Towers
Pothenenivari Street
Mahavaram, Vijayawada.
*** Complainant
And
1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Arun Kumar Shah
S/o. Brindavan Chandra Shah
O/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/5A,
III Floor Amogh Plaza,
Begumpet, Hyderabad. *** O.P. No. 1
2. M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Arun Kumar Shah
S/o. Brindavan Chandra Shah
O/o. Bachupally, Miyapur
Hyderabad. *** O.P. No. 2
3. State Bank of India
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
B.R.P. Road, One Town
Vijayawada. *** O.P. No. 3
CC 83 of 2010
Between:
M. Pavan Kumar
S/o. Nagaraja Prasad
R/o. 504, Pragathi Residency
Street No. 9
East Maredpally, Secunderabad. *** Complainant
And
1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
(formerly known as
M/s. Maytas Hill County (P) Ltd)
Rep. by its Nominee /Director
D.V.S.Subba Raju
S/o. D. Krishnam Raju
O/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/5A,
III Floor Amogh Plaza,
Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016.. *** O.P. No. 1
2. D.V.S. Subba Raju
S/o. Mr. D. Krishnam Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97,
Dhanunjaya Nest,
Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda,
Hyderabad-500 045.
3. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju
(Director) of M/s. Maytas Properties ltd,
S/o. Mr. Satyanarayana Raju
H.No H-17, Tulasi Apartments,
Madhura nagar, SR Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500 038.
4. Mr. Bayyraju Rama Raju
(Whole Time Director /Promoter/
Executive Director)
of M/s. Maytas Properties ltd,
S/o. Mr. Rama Linga Raju,
R/o. Plot No. 1254 A,
Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 033.
5. Mr. Ved Kumar Jain
( Nominee Director) of
M/s. Maytas Properties ltd
S/o. Mr. Padam Sain Jain, 33,
Babar Road, Bengali Market,
New Delhi- 110 001.
6. Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India
RACPC, Patny Centre,
Zonal office Building,
Secunderabad. *** Ops 2 to 6
CC 92 of 2010
Between:
1) Srinivas Penyala
S/o. P. S. Ramachandran
2) Smt. T. Sundara Laxmi
W/o. Srinivas Penyala
Rep. by GPA B.V.S.S. Prakasham
S/o. Veera Bhadraiah
Both R/o.12-13-1242,
Flat No. 301, Sapthagiri
Street No. 8, Tarnaka
Hyderabad. *** Complainants
And
1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
(formerly known as M/s. Maytas Hill County (P) Ltd)
Rep. by its M. Theja Pratap Raju
S/o. Mr. Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o.6-3-1186/5/A, III floor,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad -500 016. *** OP No. 1
2. M. Theja Pratap Raju
Nominee of M/s. Maytas Properties ltd,
S/o. Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o.6-3-1186/5/A, III floor,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad -500 016.
3. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju
(Director) of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
H.No.17, Tulasi Apartments,
Madhura nagar, SR Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500 038.
4. Bayyraju Rama Raju
(Whole Time Director /Promoter/
Executive Director) of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
S/o. Rama Linga Raju,
R/o. Plot No. 1254 A,
Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 033.
5. Ved Kumar Jain ( Nominee Director)
of M/s. Maytas Properties ltd
S/o. Padam Sain Jain, 33,
Babar Road, Bengali Market,
New Delhi- 110 001.
6. The Asst. General Manger,
State Bank of India;
RACPC Zonal office Building;
Patny Centre , Secunderabad. *** Ops 2 to 6
CC 94 of 2010
Between:
Smt. S. Radha
W/o. Sashidhar Reddy
R/o. 1/A , Raja Sree Apartments
H.No. 539/MIG, S.R. Nagar
Hyderabad. *** Complainant
And
1. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
(formerly known as M/s. Maytas Hill County (P) Ltd)
Rep. by its M. Theja Pratap Raju
S/o. Mr. Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o.6-3-1186/5/A, III floor,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad -500 016. *** OP No. 1
2. M. Theja Pratap Raju
Nominee of M/s. Maytas Properties ltd,
S/o. Hari Prasad Raju,
O/o.6-3-1186/5/A, III floor,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad -500 016.
3. Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju
(Director) of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
S/o. Satyanarayana Raju
H.No.17, Tulasi Apartments,
Madhura nagar, SR Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500 038.
4. Bayyraju Rama Raju
(Whole Time Director /Promoter/
Executive Director) of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd,
S/o. Rama Linga Raju,
R/o. Plot No. 1254 A,
Road No. 63, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 033.
5. Ved Kumar Jain ( Nominee Director)
of M/s. Maytas Properties ltd
S/o. Padam Sain Jain, 33,
Babar Road, Bengali Market,
New Delhi- 110 001.
6. The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Ameerpet Branch
Hyderabad.
7. The Asst. General Manger,
State Bank of India;
RACPC Zonal office Building;
Patny Centre , Secunderabad. *** Ops 2 to 7
CC 85 of 2010
Between:
1) Simpson Anantha Ratna Raju
S/o. R. Simpson
2) Smt. Rupa Ananth
W/o. Simpson Anantha Raju
Both R/o. 404, Venkata Sai Nilayam,
Brahmana Wadi, Secunderabad. *** Complainants
And
1. Mytas Properties Ltd;
Rep.by its Executive Director
B. Rama Raju, S/o. Mr. Ramalinga Raju ,
Hill County Pvt ltd,
Bachupally village, Miyapur,
Qutbhullapur Mandal, *** O.P. No. 1
Hyderabad.
2. State Bank of India
Rep.by its Asst. General manager,
R.A.C.P.C. , Zonal office,
Secunderabad. *** O.P. No. 2
3. M/s. Swarnamuki Green Fields Pvt ltd, Hyd
4. M/s Himagiri Bio-tech (P) ltd, Hyderabad
5. M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad
6. M/s. Goman Agro Farms Pvt ltd, Hyderabad
7. M/s. Himagiri Green Fields Pvt ltd, Hyderabad.
8. M/s. Nagavali Greenland pvt ltd.
9. M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields (P) ltd, Hyderabad
10. M/s Konar Greenlands (P) ltd, Hyderabad
11M/s Medravati Agro Farms (P) ltd, Hyderabad
12. M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms (P) Ltd, Hyderabad
13. M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) ltd Hyderabad.
14. M/s. Vindhya Green Lands (P) ltd, Hyderabad
15. M/s. Vamsadhara Agro (P) ltd, Hyderabad.
16 M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech (P) ltd, Hyderabad.
(Op No.3 to 16 represented by GPA
D.V.S.Subba Raju, Director,
Maytas Hill County, Bachupally
Miyapur, Hyderabad. *** O.Ps 3 to 16.
CC 86 of 2010
Between:
Satish Kumar Murugeshan
S/o. P. Murugeshan
R/o. 101, Bharani Residency
Novotel Hotel Road
Kondapur, Hyderabad. *** Complainant
And
1. Maytas Properties Ltd.
Rep.by its Executive Director
B. Rama Raju
s/o. B. Rama Linga Raju
Hill County, Bachupally
Miyapur, Hyderabad. *** O.P. No. 1
2. State Bank of India
Rep. by its Assistant General Manager,
RACPC, Zonal office Building,
Patny Centre, Secunderabad. *** O.P. No. 2
3. M/s. Swarnamuki Green Fields Pvt ltd, Hyd
4. M/s Himagiri Bio-tech (P) ltd, Hyderabad
5. M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad
6. M/s. Goman Agro Farms Pvt ltd, Hyderabad
7. M/s. Himagiri Green Fields Pvt ltd, Hyderabad.
8. M/s. Nagavali Green Lands Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
9. M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields (P) ltd, Hyderabad
10. M/s Konar Greenlands (P) ltd, Hyderabad
11. M/s Medravati Agro Farms (P) ltd, Hyderabad
12. M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms (P) Ltd, Hyderabad
13. M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) ltd Hyderabad.
14. M/s. Vindhya Green Lands (P) ltd, Hyderabad
15. M/s. Vamsadhara Agro (P) ltd, Hyderabad.
16. M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech (P) ltd, Hyderabad.
Rep.by their Attorney /Nominee .
D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Mr. D.Krishnam Raju.
Maytas Hill County, Bachupally
Miyapur, Hyderabad. *** Ops 3 to 16
CC 11 of 2010
Between:
1) Chandra Sekhara Rao Somaraju
S/o. Gopala Rao Somaraju
2) Smt. Madhurima Somaraju
W/o. Chandra Sekhara Rao Somaraju
Rep. by GPA Mallem Gopala Krishna Rao
S/o. Seetharama Rao
R/o. B-406, Amsali Residency
7-1-38, D.K. Road, Ameerpet
Hyderabad. *** Complainants
And
1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd.
Rep. by its nominee Teja Pratap Raju
S/o. Hari Prasad Raju
Office at : Maytas Hill County
Bachupally, Hyderabad. *** O.P. No. 1
2) M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields P. Ltd., Hyderabad.
3) M/s. Himagiri Bio-tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
4) M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
5) M/s. Goman Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
6) M/s. Himagiri Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
7) M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad
8) M/s. Konar Green Land Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad
9) M/s. Medravati Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
10) M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
11) M/s. Wardha Green Fields P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
12) M/s. Vindhya Green Lands Pvt Ltd,, Hyderabad
13) M/s. Vamsadhara Agro P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad
14) M/s. Uttarashad Bio-Tech P. Ltd.,, Hyderabad,
Rep. by their Attorney Teja Pratap Raju
S/o. Hari Prasad Raju
At 6-3-1186/5/5A, III Floor,
Amogh, Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad-500016, *** Ops 2 to 14.
15) Teja Pratap Raju
S/o. Hari Prasad Raju
Flat No. 302,
Sneha Siri Sampadha Apartments
B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar
Hyderabad-500 038. *** O.P. No. 15
16) State Bank of India
Rep. by its Assistant General Manager,
RACPC, Patny Centre,
Zonal office Building,
Secunderabad. *** O.P. No. 16
CC 19 of 2010
Between:
1) Ch.Venu Madhava Rao,
S/o.Mr.Narsing Rao
2) Mrs. Ch.V.R. Rajani,
W/o.Ch.Venu Madhava Rao
Both R/o. Flat No. S-1, Akhila Arcade,
Plot No.6, Women’s Co-operative Society,
Road No.2, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad - 500 045. *** Complainant
And
1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd.
Rep. by its Nominee D.V.S. Subba Raju
S/o. D. Krishnam Raju
Maytas Hill County, Bachupally
Miyapur, Hyderabad. *** O.P. No. 1
2) M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
3) M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
4) M/s. Sindhu Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
5) M/s. Goman Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
6) M/s. Himagiri Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
7) M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields P. Ltd., Hyderabad.
8) M/s. Konar Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
9) M/s. Medravidi Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
10) M/s. Yamuna Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
11) M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
12) M/s. Vindhya Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
13) M/s. Vamsadhara Agro (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
14) M/s. Uttarashada Agro (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Regd. Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5/5A,
III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016.
Rep. by its Attorney
DVS Subba Raju,
S/o. D. Krishnam Raju *** O.P. No. 2 to 14
15) D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97,
Dhanunjaya Nest,, Rajiv Nagar,
Yousufguda, Hyderabad-45. *** O.P. No. 15
16) M/s. State Bank of India,
Rep. by its, Branch Manager,
Post Box No.2, T-44,
Robert Lines, Secunderabad.
CC 54 of 2010
Between:
1) K. Vivekananda Rao
S/o. Sobhachalam
2) K. Prashanth
S/o. K. Vivekananda Rao
Rep. by GPA K. Vivekananda Rao
R/o. 1044, LIGH, KPHB Colony
Kukatpally, Hyderabad *** Complainants
And
1) M/s. Maytas Hill County P. Ltd.
Rep. by its Nominee D.V.S. Subba Raju
S/o. D. Krishnam Raju
Regd. Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5/5A,
III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016. *** O.P. No. 1
2) M/s. Swarnamukhi Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
3) M/s. Himagiri Bio-Tech (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
4) M/s. Sindhu Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
5) M/s. Goman Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
6) M/s. Himagiri Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
7) M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields P. Ltd., Hyderabad.
8) M/s. Konar Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
9) M/s. Medravidi Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
10) M/s. Yamuna Agro Forms (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
11) M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
12) M/s. Vindhya Greenlands (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
13) M/s. Vamsadhara Agro (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
14) M/s. Uttarashada Biotech (P) Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Regd. Office at H.No.6-3-1186/5/5A,
III Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016.
Rep. by its Attorney/Nominee
DVS Subba Raju,
S/o. D. Krishnam Raju *** Ops 2 to 14
15) D.V.S. Subba Raju,
S/o.Mr.D.Krishnam Raju
Flat No.102, Plot No.97,
Dhanunjaya Nest,, Rajiv Nagar,
Yousufguda, Hyderabad-45. *** O.P. No. 15
16) The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
PBB Branch, S.P. Road
Secunderabad.
17) Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India
RACPC, Zonal office Building,
Patny Centre, Secunderabad. *** Ops 16 & 17
CC 57 of 2010
Between:
P.V.S Kedarinath
S/o. P.V. Ramana Sarma
Rep. by his GPA P.V. Ramana Sarma
s/o. Surya Narayana
Plot No. 601,
Sri Sai Ram Prestige Apartments
Siddartha Nagar (N)
Hydrabad. *** Complainant
And
1. Mytas Hill County Private Ltd;
Rep.by its Nominee
Mr. D.V.S.Subba Raju,
S/o. D.Krishnam Raju
H.No.6-3-1186/5A, III floor,
Amogh Plaza, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500 016. *** O.P. No. 1
2. M/s. Swarnamuki Green Fields Pvt ltd, Hyd
3. M/s Himagiri Bio-tech (P) ltd, Hyderabad
4. M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad
5. M/s.Goman Agro Farms Pvt ltd, Hyderabad
6. M/s. Himagiri Green Fields Pvt ltd, Hyderabad.
7. M/s. Swarnagiri Green Fields (P) ltd, Hyderabad
8. M/s Konar Greenlands (P) ltd, Hyderabad
9. M/sMedravati Agro Farms (P) ltd, Hyderabad
10. M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms (P) Ltd, Hyderabad
11. M/s. Wardha Green Fields (P) ltd Hyderabad.
12. M/s. Vindhya Green Lands (P) ltd, Hyderabad
13. M/s.Vamsadhara Agro (P) ltd, Hyderabad.
14. M/s. Uttarashada Bio-Tech (P) ltd, Hyderabad.
Reg. offices at H.No.6-3-1186/5A,
Rep.by their Attorney /Nominee .
D.V.S. Subba Raju
S/o. Mr. D.Krishnam Raju. *** O.P. No. 2 to 14
15. D.V.S.Subba Raju
S/o. D., Krishnam Raju,
Flat No.102, Plot No.97,
Dhanunjaya Nest ,
Rajiv nagar, Yousufguda,
Hyderabad-500 045. *** O.P. No. 15
16. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
NRI Branch, Bank Street
Koti, Hyderabad.
17) The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
SPL PBB Branch
Jubilee Hills, Plot No. 1272
Road No 63, Hyderabad. *** O.P. No. 16 & 17.
Counsel for the Complainants : M/s. V. Appa Rao
M/s. G. Narender Raju
M/s. Koka Satyanarayana Rao
M/s. Srinivas Karra
M/s. V. Gouri Shankara Rao
M/s. M. Hamsa Raju
Counsel for the Opposite Parties M/s K. Vishveshwara Reddy (MPL)
M/s. C. Naresh Reddy (Land owners)
M/s. B.S. Prasad (Bank)
M/s. V. Srikrishnudu (Bank)
M/s. G. Prabhakar Sarma (Bank)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY, TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) These complaints are filed by different complainants against MAYTAS (herein after called the ‘developer’) praying to direct the developer to hand over the finished flats under sale by executing registered sale deeds or in the alternative refund the sale consideration with interest, besides penalty amount @ Rs. 5/- per sft of the super built up area together compensation and costs and also against State Bank of India (herein after called the ‘bank’) for refund of the amount disbursed by the bank to the developer together with penal interest and credit into their loan account etc. u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these complaints, and against the same opposite parties, we are of the opinion that they can be disposed of by a common order.
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that the developer floated a venture and agreed to sell apartments situated in Sy192/P to 198/P, 201/P and 282/P at Bachupally of Qutubullapur Mandal, in Ranga Reddy district in an extent of Ac. 85.36 Guntas of land. The developer represented that it had obtained layout permission from HUDA on 21-3-2006 for constructing the independent houses and flats etc. Under various agreements of sale consideration was agreed to be paid in instalments viz., 10% of the amount on the date of booking, and another 10% within 15 days from the date of booking and the remaining in phased manner and 5% at the time of handing over the flat as shown below:
S.No.
CC 11/2010
1
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Simla
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
733053
Type-4
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
733053
Floor No. 5
1
15.11.2007 (15%)
1099579
Flat No. 5A
2
15.02.2008 (15%)
1099579
Built up area
3
15.05.2008 (15%)
1099579
in sft - 1584
4
15.08.2008 (15%)
1099579
5
15.11.2008 (15%)
1099579
6
During hand over (5%)
366526
Total sale consideration
7330527
2
CC 14/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
SALE DEED EXECUTED
Kodai
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
755767
Type-3
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
755767
Floor No. 7
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
944709
Flat No. 7B
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
944709
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
944709
in sft - 2547
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
944709
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
944709
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
944709
7
During hand over (5%)
377884
Total sale consideration
7557672
3
CC 19/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Mussoorie
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
493937
Type-5
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
493937
Floor No. 6
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
617422
Flat No. 6B
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
617422
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
617422
in sft - 1648
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
617422
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
617422
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
617422
7
During hand over (5%)
246969
Total sale consideration
4939373
5
CC 54/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Munnar
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
606211
Type-5
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
606211
Floor No. 10
1
15.01.2007 (12.5%)
757764
Flat No. 10D
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
757764
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
757764
in sft - 1263
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
757764
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
757764
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
757764
7
During hand over (5%)
303105
Total sale consideration
6062109
6
CC 57/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Mussoorie
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
578772
Type-4
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
578772
Floor No. 12
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
723465
Flat No. 12F
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
723465
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
723465
in sft - 1889
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
723465
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
723465
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
723465
7
During hand over (5%)
289386
Total sale consideration
5787719
7
CC 83/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Naintal
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
490179
Type-5
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
490179
Floor No. 6
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
612724
Flat No. 6H
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
612724
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
612724
in sft - 1579
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
612724
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
612724
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
612724
7
During hand over (5%)
245090
Total sale consideration
4901792
8
CC 85/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
SALE DEED EXECUTED
Ooty
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
498882
Type-5
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
498882
Floor No. 8
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
623602
Flat No. 8B
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
623602
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
623602
in sft - 1648
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
623602
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
623602
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
623602
7
During hand over (5%)
249441
Total sale consideration
4988817
9
CC 86/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Ooty
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
601199
Type-4
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
601199
Floor No. 6
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
751498
Flat No. 6C
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
751498
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
751498
in sft - 1889
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
751498
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
751498
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
751498
7
During hand over (5%)
300599
Total sale consideration
6011985
10
CC 92/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Munnar
Booking advance
Type-4
Allotment advance
4477897
Floor No. 8
1
Flat No. 8A
2
Built up area
3
in sft - 1584
4
5
6
7
Total sale consideration
4477897
11
CC 94/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Ooty
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
506298
Type-5
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
506298
Floor No. 11
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
632873
Flat No. 11B
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
632873
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
632873
in sft - 1648
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
632873
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
632873
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
632873
7
During hand over (5%)
253149
Total sale consideration
5062980
12
CC 117/2010
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Moosorie
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
487811
Type-5
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
487811
Floor No. 4
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
609764
Flat No. 4E
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
609764
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
609764
in sft - 1579
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
609764
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
609764
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
609764
7
During hand over (5%)
243906
Total sale consideration
4878114
13
CC 32/2011
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Simla
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
672280
Type-4
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
672280
Floor No. 3
1
15.01.2007 (12.5%)
840351
Flat No. 3F
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
840351
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
840351
in sft - 1511
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
840351
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
840351
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
840351
7
During hand over (5%)
336140
Total sale consideration
6722804
14
CC 51/2011
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Naintal
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
558937
Type-4
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
558937
Floor No. 4
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
698671
Flat No. 4E
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
698671
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
698671
in sft - 1889
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
698671
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
698671
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
698671
7
During hand over (5%)
279468
Total sale consideration
5589368
15
CC 53/2011
Flat Details
Instalment
Due Date
Rs.
Naintal
Booking advance
On Booking 10%
702505
Type-4
Allotment advance
15 days from booking
702505
Floor No. 13
1
15.12.2006 (12.5%)
878132
Flat No. 13G
2
15.03.2007 (12.5)
878132
Built up area
3
15.06.2007 (12.5)
878132
in sft - 1889
4
15.09.2007 (12.5)
878132
5
15.12.2007 (12.5)
878132
6
15.03.2008 (12.5)
878132
7
During hand over (5%)
351253
Total sale consideration
7025054
The bank agreed to grant loan and pay the amount to the developer as per the tripartite agreement executed in this regard between them. Accordingly the complainants had paid initial amount booking and allotment advance etc. and the bank in turn had sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount to the developer. The developer executed registered sale deeds in favour of some of the complainants in respect of undivided share of land together with unfinished structure.
(3.1) It was agreed that the construction was to be completed within a year with a grace period of three months, and in some cases 20 months. While so, on 7.1.2009, founder of M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Sri Ramalinga Raju confessed that he had diverted the founds from developer to computer services and therefore there could be delay in completion of the project. On that developer sent a notice calling upon them to attend meeting on 25.3.2009. In fact, it cannot collect more than 20% towards advance as per Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987. It did not even file the declaration u/s 4 of the said Act. The bank even did not insist on the developer for adhering to the agreement under the provisions of above Act. The bank had disbursed the entire amount without any physical verification or valuation by a valuer contrary to the agreement and tripartite agreement. The developer was guilty in not completing the construction within the time stipulated, and diverting the funds. It had abruptly abandoned the construction. There were criminal proceedings initiated against the directors. They were even convicted by the Special Judge for Economic Offences for not filing profit and loss account, balance sheet before the Registrar of Companies. Virtually the developer is non-existent as per the balance sheet of the year 2008-2009. By virtue of directions of the Hon’ble High Court in Company Petition No. 172/2011 it had submitted its net worth as ‘zero’ and it has accumulated loss of Rs. 538 crores. In addition to that there is an award against the developer for Rs. 600 crores together with interest at Rs. 221 crores. In fact it had advanced loans of Rs. 247 crores to its subsidiary companies, recovery of which was doubtful. All this has created in mental agony to them. They were forced to pay EMIs on the loans borrowed. Therefore the complainants are filed for the above mentioned reliefs.
4) The developer filed counter resisting the claim. It admitted that it is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act inter-alia engaged in the business of construction. It alleged that it started a venture, under the name and style ‘Maytas Hill County’ along with other opposite parties. They entered into an agreements of sale on various dates agreeing to sell flats as alleged in the complaints for the consideration mentioned therein excluding stamp duty, registration fee, VAT, service tax etc. The project was commenced as per the schedule. However, on a wholly incorrect understanding of its association with Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju, various investigations and proceedings were instituted against it. The private financial institutions which had committed funding withdrew from the project causing serious shortage of funds, jeopardizing the further development of the project. The delay in completion of the project was due to ‘force majeure’ which is beyond its control. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Later on account of various steps taken by it 140 independent houses were constructed and delivered possession and 172 independent houses are in final stages. It had also undertaken to complete the construction of flats. It was fully committed to complete the project and deliver the same to the complainants. Its case was also referred to Company Law Board. It has appointed SBI Capital Markets Ltd. (SBI Cap) as transaction advisor. The entire process was entrusted to Justice A. R. Laxmanan former judge of Supreme Court of India. The Company Law Board on 13.1.2011 passed an order inducting M/s. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd., M/s. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. and M/s. IL & FS Engineering and Construction Company Ltd., into the company as shareholders by allotting preferential shares. Pursuant to which the Board of Directors are re-constituted. They have initiated various measures. It is in the process of arranging further infusion of funds in order to complete the project. The agreement stipulates arbitration clause wherein the disputes would be referred to an arbitrator. It did neither commit any breach nor commit any offence as alleged in the complaint. In view of various judgements and court orders the project was delayed. In fact it had invoked the arbitration clause and referred the matter to an arbitrator Hon’ble Justice V. Bhaskar Rao for adjudication. The complainants were not entitled to any of the amounts. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs.
5) The directors of the developer filed a memo adopting the counter filed by it.
6) The bank filed counter resisting the case. The complainants have approached the bank for availing loan for purchase of flats and they entered into agreement of sale with the developer. Basing on the application and income profile of the complainants and the agreement of sale entered into between the complainants and the developer it (the bank) had agreed to sanction loan as per the norms. The complainants, developer and the bank entered into a tripartite agreement and as per the terms it had disbursed the loan amount against mortgage property directly to the developer on behalf of complainants as per the agreed terms basing on the disbursal request submitted by the complainants. The tripartite agreement enables the bank to review the progress of construction to protect its own interest and not a duty cast on it. The complainants cannot stop payment of EMIs on the ground that the developer failed to complete the construction/hand over possession of the flats. They are estopped from making any claims in the light of terms of tripartite agreement. There was no deficiency in service on its part nor adopted any unfair trade practise. The complainants filed these false cases in order to avoid repayment of loan amount and make wrongful gain. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs.
7) Both parties filed their affidavit evidence and got the documents marked.
8) The points that arise for consideration are :
i. Whether the complainants are entitled for possession and registration of flats or in the alternative refund of the amount, if so, to what amount?
ii. Whether the bank was justified in releasing the entire amount, contrary to the terms of agreements?
iii. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation?
iv. To what relief?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants had booked the flats and paid sale consideration by borrowing loans from the bank basing on a construction agreement entered into between the complainants and the developer. The developer had agreed to complete the construction and hand over possession within stipulated period from the date of execution of agreement. It also agreed to pay Rs.5/- per sft. for the delayed construction up to a maximum of 8 months. Pursuant to the above agreements of sale, a tripartite agreements are also entered into between the developer, complainants and bank where the bank undertook to disburse the loan amount to the builder as agreed upon.
10) Unfortunately the developer stopped the construction and it has come to stand still, when Satyam group of companies in which developer is one of the constituent company went into liquidation. The complainants, therefore, seek registration of the sale deeds, and possession of the completed apartments or in the alternative refund of amounts or where sale deeds were executed, to permit them to re-convey title to the developer together with interest, compensation and costs.
11) The developer resisted the complaints on the ground that the agreement provides for reference to an Arbitrator in case of dispute and therefore the complaints are not maintainable before this Commission.
12) We may state that the developer filed applications to dismiss the complaints on the ground that there is an arbitration clause contained in the agreement. The said applications were dismissed holding that the Commission has jurisdiction in the light of various decisions of the Apex Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the developer filed W.P.Nos.27689/10 and batch. Their lordships of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions upholding the order of this Commission. Therefore, we do not intend to once again consider the said question. The developer is estopped from contending that by virtue of arbitration clause, this Commission cannot proceed ahead for adjudicating the matters in the light of the above orders.
13) The developer raised another contention that by virtue of the orders of the Company Law Board (‘CLB’ for short) 05-3-2009 and 13-1-2011, the complainants cannot seek relief before this Commission and they have to approach the CLB for redressal. More over, it cannot be said to be guilty of rendering deficiency in service.
14) Despite the fact that developer company is the party, it did not bring it to the notice of the Company Law Board as to the various claims made by the complainants. Except stating that the Maytas Hill Owners Association was a party to such order, there is no proof that the complainants are parties to the said association or any notice was served on them individually in order to bind them. In all fairness, the developer company ought to have impleaded the complainants as parties to the above said proceedings.
15) The learned counsel for the complainants submitted that they learnt that the developer represented before the CLB that all efforts would be taken up for completion of the project. Evidently no construction activity has been taken up. Even otherwise they did not even start construction as per the orders of CLB and arbitration. These facts are not disputed. The complainants submitted that they have no hopes that the project would be completed within a reasonable time so that they could wait for the project to be completed and then take possession of the apartments. They insist that their amounts be refunded with interest, besides penalty @ Rs. 5/- per sft as agreed upon together with compensation and costs.
16) The learned counsel for the developer contended that the order of the Company Law Board is binding on the complainants and these complaints have to be necessarily dismissed with a direction to approach the CLB. When the developer company originally run by Satyam Computer Services Ltd. founded by Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju went into serious financial troubles and the allegation that funds of Satyam were diverted to Maytas Properties to bail out from liquidation, the Central Government filed Company Application No.4/2009 U/s.388 B, 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act before the Principal Bench of Company Law Board, New Delhi. In the said company petition, directions were issued on 13-1-2011, directing Central Government to nominate a nominee director on behalf of the CLB. The order discloses that Shri Ved Kumar Jain was nominated as director on behalf of the CLB. The nominee director undertook various measures to put the project back on track basing on the recommendations of Hon’ble Justice A.R. Laxmanan.
The CLB order dt. 13-1-2011 reads as follows:
(i) I permit the induction of IL & FS group (consisting of Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS). IL&FS Financial Services Limited (IFIN) and IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Limited (IECL) as the new promoter of MPL and permit reconstitution of the Board of MPL as provided hereunder.
(ii) The IL &FS group shall invest Rs.20 lakhs in equity share
capital of the MPL whereupon its shareholding in MPL would
become 80%.
(iii) The IL &FS group on induction as the strategic investor
shall take-over the management control of the MPL and
reconstitute the Board of Directors of MPL as under:
a) There shall be 4 nominees of the IL &FS group as directors on the Board of MPL including the Chairman.
b) The existing Directors of MPL, i.e., Mr.Rama Raju, Mr.D.Gopla Krishnam Raju and Mr.D.Venkata Satya Subba Raju shall resign as Directors of MPL immediately on induction of IL&FS group as the strategic investor in MPL.
c) Mr. Ved Jain , the nominee Director, appointed by the Union of India, Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dt. 5.4.2009 shall continue as Director in MPL for a further period of 3 years.
(iv). The IL &FS group shall mobilize funds of Rs.150 crores in MPL within a period
of 3 months from today.
(v) The IL&FS group shall complete the Maytas Hill Country Residential
Project Phase-I within 18 months of its induction as promoter in MPL and
shall arrange the required finances to complete the project.
The order required the above said group to complete the project within 18 months. Pursuant to it, the developer has been taken over by new inductives. It is not known as to the steps that are initiated in compliance of the orders.
17) The learned counsel for the developer relied the following decisions for the proposition that this Commission cannot go ahead and adjudicate the dispute in view of the above orders:
The supreme Court in Sangramsinh P.Gaekwad v.Shantadevi P.Gaekwad, reported in (2005) 123 Comp. Cas 566, held that Section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 is without prejudice to the generality of the powers of the Company Law Board under Section 397 & 398 and may provide for directions to achieve the objects for which the above sections are enacted. These statutory powers have been vested to administer justice and equity, giving broad discretion applying general standard of fairness to meet the ends of justice.
In Manish Mohan Sharma v. Ram Bahadur Thakur, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1690, the Supreme Court held that the powers under Section 402 are residuary in nature and in addition to the powers available to the Company Law Board under Sections 397(2) and Section 398(2) which permit the Company Law Board to make such order as it thinks fit with a view to bringing to an end the matters complained under 397(1) and 398(1).
In Ravi Kiran Agarwal & Anr. v. Moolchand Shah & Ors., reported in [2009] 152 Comp Case 637 (Bom), it was held that there is no reason to confine the words “ any other person” under section 405 to those categories of persons who are elucidated in clause (e) of Section 402. Further, it was also held that the exercise of those wide powers, may in a given situation affect the interest of third parties. The court opined that Section 402 describes the nature of reliefs that can be granted in a petition under section 397 and 398. Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 402 are not exhaustive of the reliefs that can be granted by the Board but are only illustrative of the wide powers that are granted upon the Board with a view to ameliorating the situation of mismanagement and oppression.
In MSDC Radharaman v. MSD Chandrasekara Raja, reported in (2008) 6 SCC 750, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board having been couched in wide terms and as diverse reliefs can be granted by it to keep the company functioning, is it not desirable to pass an order which for all intent and purport would be beneficial to the company itself and the majority of the members? A court of law can hardly satisfy all the litigants before it. This however, by itself would not mean that the Company Law Board would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, although the statute confers such a power on it.
In Starlinger & Co. v. Lohia Starlinger Ltd, reported in 2007 (5) ADJ 744, it was held that Clause (g) of Section 402 has illustrated these extraordinary powers in which the Company Law Board may provide for any other matter, which in the opinion of the Company Law Board is just and equitable.
In Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 47 Comp Cas 92, it was held that instead of destroying the corporate existence of a company, the Company Law Board has been enabled to continue its corporate existence by passing such orders as it thinks fit in order to achieve the objective of removing the oppression to any member or members of a company or to prevent the company’s affairs from being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest.
In India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 510, observed that the doctrine of comity or amity requires a court not to pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent court of law.
In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v Union of India, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 295, it was held that the findings of CLB need to be respected by a Company Court and must not be interfered with unless there is a glaring anomaly.
In Takshila Hospital Ltd. v. Dr.Jaganmohan Mathur, reported in [2003] 115 Com Cas 343 Raj, it was held that an exercise of such option of instituting a proceedings under Section 397 & 398, an independent proceeding came to be instituted which had to be proceeded with independently and uninfluenced by other proceedings which have not even crossed the preliminary stage of admission. In the very nature of the order passed by the learned company judge, the company petition for winding up cannot now be proceeded with until proceedings under Section 397 are finally culminated, which includes the exercise of rights of appeal by any party aggrieved with the order passed by the CLB. Such appeal also lies to the High Court.
The decisions did not lay down any proposition that the proceedings before the consumer fora have to be shelved or the complainants have to approach the CLB.
18) In fact the question whether the complainants have to approach the CLB or pursue their remedy before this Commission is covered by a decision of our High Court in PRUDENTIAL CAPITAL MARKETS Limited, Calcutta v. State of A.P. Department of Law reported in 2000 ALT-5-468. It held as follows:
‘There are three categories of cases. The first category of cases are those where the depositor filed a consumer dispute case before the competent District Forum for refund of the deposit made by the depositor with the PRUDENTIAL CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED (‘PCML’ for short) and on the District Forum allowing the application, the petitioner herein approached the State Commission which dismissed the appeal filed and whereupon the depositor approached District Forum under Section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing penalty petition. The second category of cases are those where the depositor filed a penalty petition before the District Forum for implementation of the order in consumer dispute case and where the petitioner did not approach the State Commission which is the appellate forum. The third category of cases are those where the orders of the appellate forum are challenged by the petitioner.’
In the process, the question whether CLB can only entertain the complaint against PCML has arisen. While dealing with the said question the proceedings before CLB vis-à-vis the proceedings before Consumer Forum have also arisen.
19) In the instant case since the developer has clutched the jurisdiction of CLB, the question is whether the provisions of CLB oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. The said question has been discussed in the above decision as follows:
‘The next aspect of the matter is whether the provisions of the Companies Act and the RBI Act impliedly ousts the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums when the CLB is seized of the matter or passed an order at the instance of some of the depositors of NBFC. Hence, sub-sees. (4-D) and (5) of Section 10-E and Section 58-A(9) of the Companies Act and Sections 45-Q and 45-QA of the RBI Act require to be examined, which are as under:“10-E-(4-D) : Every Bench shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 and (Chapter XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1973) and every proceeding before the Bench shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and for the purpose of Section 196 of that code.(5) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (4-C) and (4-D), the Company Law Board shall in the exercise of its powers and the discharge of its functions under this Act, or any other law be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall act in its discretion. “58-A(9): Where a company has failed to repay any deposit or part thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit, the Company Law Board may, if it is satisfied, either on its own motion or on the application of the depositor, that it is necessary so to do to safeguard the interests of the company, the depositors or in the public interest, direct, by order, the company to make repayment of such deposit or part the order: Provided that the Company Law Board may, before making any order under this sub-section, give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the company and the other persons interested in the matter. “Sections 45-Q and 45-QA of the RBI Act are as under: “45-Q: Chapter III-B to override other Laws: The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. 45-QA. Power of Company Law Board to order repayment of deposit: (1) Every deposit accepted by a non-banking financial company, unless renewed, shall be repaid in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit. (2) Where a non-banking financial company has failed to repay any deposit or part thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of such deposit, the Company Law Board constituted under Section 10-E of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) may, if it is satisfied, either on its own motion or on an application of the depositor, that it is necessary so to do to safeguard the interests of the company, the depositors or in the public interest, direct, by order, the non-banking financial company to make repayment of such deposit or part thereof forthwith or within such time and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order: Provided that the Company Law Board may, before making any order under this sub-section, give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the non-banking financial company and the other persons interested in the matter.”
20) The provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act, vis-à-vis., the CLB also came up for discussion. The very same logic could as well be applied to the case on hand. In view of the fact that their Lordships at Para 51 of the above decision opined:
The CLB is constituted by the Central Government and the said Board shall exercise and discourage powers and functions as may be conferred on it by or under the companies Act or any other law and shall also exercise and discharge such other powers and functions of the Central Government under the Companies Act or other law as may be conferred on it by the Central Government. Notwithstanding subsection (1A) of Section 10-E of the Companies Act, the Civil Courts exercised jurisdiction under sec.9 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, till sub-section (9) of Section 58-A was inserted by the Companies (Amendment ) Act, 1977 with effect from 24-12-1977 conferring powers on the CLB to entertain an application of the depositor for repayment of money. After 1977, till the enactment of Consumer Act in 1986, both the Civil Courts as well as the CLB entertained applications from the depositors for refund of deposits. After the Consumer Act, the Forums established under it started granting redressal to the depositors having regard to the broad definition ‘service’ adumbrated in Sec.2(1) (O) of the Consumer Protection Act. Ultimately, to provide an additional speedy remedy, the Parliament enacted RBI ( Amendment) Act, 1997 inserting Sec.45-QA giving power to CLB constituted under Sec.10-E of the Companies Act which ‘may, either on its own motion or on application of the depositors’ order NBFCs to make repayment of such deposits. This background should be kept in mind while examining the order of the CLB, Eastern Region Bench, Calcutta, dated 27-5-1998.
Their lordships also held at para-57 as follows:
‘Sub-section (5) of Sec.10-E of the Companies Act lays down that the CLB shall in the exercise of its powers and the discharge of its functions under the Companies Act or any other law be guided by the principles of natural justice. The proviso to sub-section (9) of Sec.58A categorically lays down that CLB may, before making any order under sub-sec. (9), give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Company and the other persons interested in the matter. Likewise, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Sec.45-QA mandates that CLB may, before making any order under sub-section (2), give an opportunity of being heard to NBFC and the other persons interested in the matter., Elaborate reasoning is not required to infer that “the other persons interested in the matter’ appearing in the proviso to subsection (9) of Sec.58-A of the Companies Act and the proviso to sub-section (2) of Sec.45-QA of the RBI Act also include the depositors and other creditors of NBFC. It also does not require any authority to say that any provision which adumbrates the principles of natural justice should be interpreted as a mandatory provision. Though the two provisions use the word ‘may’, the same should be interpreted as mandatory.
Obligation is on the part of the CLB to order notices to all the depositors in a matter like this. How a notice is sent or information is communicated about the cases filed before the CLB under Sec.45-QA (2) of the RBI Act or Sec.58-A (9) of the Companies Act is altogether different matter’.
21) Coming to the present case, the developer did not make any attempt to place the case of the complainants before the CLB. There is no proof that notices were issued to the complainants while passing the order. It may be stated herein that all these proceedings have been taken only after the complainants have clutched the jurisdiction of this Commission. Even assuming that in one or two cases, the complainants are parties, it makes no difference. Therefore, the learned counsel for the complainants is justified in contending that in so far as complainants are concerned, the order passed by CLB is not binding on the proceedings before this Commission.
Their Lordships in the above case at Pare-59 pointed out as follows:
‘Further, as per the legal position, the proceedings before appropriate Bench of CLB should be initiated by the aggrieved party at the place of company’s registered office. This is cumbersome procedure. Therefore, all the depositors cannot be expected to appear before the CLB, Calcutta, especially when there is no notice validly served on all the depositors. The judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above support the view that when the ordinary remedy provided under the alternative law is cumbersome, the consumer cannot be deprived of the remedy before the Consumer Forums.
At para 60, their Lordships asserted as follows:
‘The summary of the findings under point No.1 for consideration may now be given. (i) A writ of prohibition cannot be granted unless want of jurisdiction is apparent and if want of jurisdiction is not apparent, the applicant must wait until the decision making body passes orders and seek a writ of certiorari. (ii) A writ of prohibition ordinarily cannot be granted to stop execution or implementation of the decision; (iii) The grant of writ of prohibition is also governed by other principles which ordinarily govern the grant of extraordinary writs like delay and laches, availability of alternative remedy etc. (iv) The provisions of Sec.45-Q, 45-QA of the RBI Act and Sec.58-A(9) of the Companies Act, do not either expressly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, from entertaining a consumer dispute case at the instance of the depositor claiming repayment of the deposit from a non-banking finance company. In view of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, remedy under the said Act is an additional remedy and the same cannot be taken away either by the RBI Act or by the Companies Act. (v) The order of the Company Law Board, Eastern Region Bench, Calcutta dated 27-5-1998 cannot be construed as either taking away the right of the depositors in these cases to approach the consumer forum or nullifying the orders passed by the District Forum/State Commission’.
22) Equally the National Commission in Lloyds Finance Ltd. Vs. Ms. Napeena Singh reported in I (2006) CPJ 163 NC considering this aspect of the matter held:
“It is the case of the complainants before us that they did not apply to the Company Law Board under Section 45QA. They were not served with any notice of any proceedings before the Company Law Board and they were not aware of any notice being published in any newspaper to which they subscribe to or is otherwise in circulation in the locality in which they reside. They say it is perversity of justice that Company Law Board situated in Mumbai could be approached by small depositors in the far flung corner of the country. The whole scheme as framed is floated and tilted in favour of NBFC. That is, however, not for us to consider. What the requirement of law is that a depositor may either approach the Company Law Board under Section 45QA or file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the appropriate forum. A depositor cannot certainly choose both the remedies simultaneously and once he files an application under Section 45QA of the RBI Act before the Company Law Board, he cannot file a complaint in a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.”
It is not the case of the developer that complainants have invoked the jurisdiction of CLB. Therefore this Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
23) The learned advocate for developer contended that in the order dt. 13.1.2011 of CLB it has considered the interests of investors, banks stakeholders, and the allottees. It held:
“Having perused CA 24/2011 and the above mentioned documents and the fact that the petitioner, the existing directors of MPL, shareholders and the Hill County Owners’ association are supporting the application, and the prayer made in the application deserves to be granted since it is in the best interests of the company as also of all the stakeholders including banks, employees, investors and the aloottees in the Maytas Hill County Residential Project, and would serve the public interest, the following order is passed in supersession of the earlier order dt. 5.3.2009.
I permit the induction of IL&FAS (consisting of Infrastructure, Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS). IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (IFIN) and IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Ltd. (IECL) as the now promoter of MPL and permit reconstitution of the board of MPL as provided hereunder :
The IL&FS group shall invest Rs. 20 lakhs in equity share capital of the MPL whereupon its shareholding in MPL would become 80%
The IL&FS group on induction as the strategic investor shall take over the management control of the MPL and reconstitute the board of directors of MPL as under :
There shall be four nominees of the IL&FS group as directors on the board of MPL including the Chairman
The existing directors of MPL Mr. Rama Raju, Mr. D. Gopala Krishnam Raju and D. Venkata Satya Subba Raju shall resign as directors of MPL immediately on induction of IL&FS group as strategic investor in MPL.
Mr. Ved Jain, the nominee director appointed by the Union of India pursuant to the directions contained in the order dt. 5.4.2009 shall continue as director in MPL for a further period of 3 years.
The IL&FS group shall mobilize funds of 150 crores in MPL within a period of three months from today.
The IL&FS group shall complete the Maytas Hill County Residential Project phase-I within 18 months of its induction as promoter in MPL, and shall arrange the requires finances to complete the project. ”
It is not known whether the said order has been complied viz., raising of Rs. 150 crores etc. The opposite parties could not confirm the order was implemented. Though he contended that various steps were taken to complete the project on time, no evidence is placed to show the exact stage of the project. Affidavit of none of the directors of the company was filed to show the stage of construction, nor the fact that any of the projects were completed.
24) The contention of the developer is that the complainants are ‘stakeholders’. Simply by using such term, the complainants cannot be taken into its fold in order to bind the orders of CLB. At the cost of repetition, we may state that it is not known why the opposite parties did not try to implead these parties to the application filed before the CLB so that they could agitate their grievances including the recovery of amount. Equally so with the bank.
25) A reading of the order passed by CLB shows that it was not aware of the cases pending before the Consumer Commission in Andhra Pradesh. Undoubtedly, the developer has with-held the information pertaining to these cases before the CLB. In the light of the above said decision, we are of the opinion that this Commission has jurisdiction. The orders passed by CLB have nothing to do with the cases on hand. The CLB was not appraised about the cases that were filed before this Commission. In view of the above decision, we are of the opinion that the orders of CLB would in no way prevent or prohibit us from passing appropriate orders as the case may be.
26) The learned counsel for the developer contended that any order directing cancellation of allotment or refund of amount would result in disbursement of the amount of the company, and therefore the complainants cannot seek refund of the amount paid by them. It is not known as to the exact amount that the developer had availed as finance from banks and other financial institutions. The developer except contending that the construction has been taken up and is in progress could not deny the statement of the complainants when they contended that no work was taken up. It could have sought for appointment of Commissioner or filed documents evidencing the construction activity.
27) Since the developer could not prove the stages of construction or that it would hand over possession within a reasonable period, and the period that was originally stipulated was already expired, and all through the complainants have been paying EMIs to the bank, we are of the opinion that it would be unjust that the complainants be directed to go on paying the amounts to the banks without there being any hope of getting the project completed.
28) The complainants by issuing notice to the developer cancelled the above said agreements and directed the developer to pay the consideration received so far, as no construction was taken up nor completed, and sought for refund of the amount paid by the bank to it with penalty @ Rs. 5/- per sft as per clause 7 (a to d) of the agreement. However, we do not see any justification in impleading the original owners of property, who have no subsisting interest in the property. They have parted their title in favour of developer. Therefore the claims against them do not sustain. The complaints are liable to be dismissed against them. Equally the complainant had issued notice to the bank alleging that the entire loan amount was released contrary to the tripartite agreement; wherein it had agreed to disburse stage wise. It was contrary to the agreement besides the guidelines under home loans scheme. It was also mentioned that since the developer had failed to complete the construction as per the terms of agreement of sale as well as tripartite agreement, the bank has to initiate the proceedings and recover the amount and return the loan amount recovered from them with ‘no due certificate’. They have enclosed the termination notice issued to the developer while sending notice to the bank. Neither of them had given any reply.
29) We may also state that recovery of money had of the complainant by the developer depends on the principle of unjust enrichment. This principle requires first that the developer has been enriched by receipt of a benefit, secondly, that this enrichment is at the expense of the complainant, and thirdly, that the retention of the enrichment be unjust. This justifies restitution.
30) We may also quote herein the words of Lord Mansfiled C.J.
This kind of equitable action to recover back money which ought not in justice to be kept….. lies only for money which ex acquo et bono the defendant ought to refund ….. It lies for money paid by mistake, or upon a consideration which happens to fail, or for money got through imposition (express or implied) or extortion, or oppression, or undue advantage taken of the plaintiff’s situation, contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances. In one word, the gist of this kind of action is, that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money.
(emphasis supplied)
Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act runs as follows :
A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. There must be some undue pecuniary inequality existing in the one party relative to the other which the law recognizes as requiring compensation upon equitable principles.
31) In some of the cases, sale deeds were executed in favour of the complainants by the developer conveying the title. Obviously, the complainants cannot have title as well as refund of the amount, since the very sale has been frustrated, in such a case, when the developer has executed the sale deed and there is no prospect of either constructing flats or delivering the property to the complainants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar case Vinod Kumar Thareja Vs. M/s. Alpha Construction reported in CPJ II (2011) CPJ -3 SC while giving directions to refund the amount also directed to re-convey the property to the builder. Therefore, we direct the complainants to execute re-conveyance deed on receipt of amount payable by the developer and the bank. The registration charges shall be borne by the developer. This is in conformity with the above said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
32) We may also state herein that the orders of this Commission against the very same developer (vide C.C. 30/2009) directing to refund the amount with interest @ 12% p.a., has been upheld by the National Commission in F.A. No. 189/2010 while reducing the compensation from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. The SLP moved by the developer before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 26256/2010 was dismissed on 27.09.2010. Therefore these matters are covered by the above decisions and there is no need for any distinction to be made between these cases. These contentions do not sustain.
33) It is an undisputed fact that agreement for purchase of apartment is between the complainant and the developer. It is also not in dispute as per the above said agreement the amount is to be paid as per the schedule which we have adverted at para-3 of this order. Recoursing the above agreement, a tripartite agreement was executed in between the complainant, developer and the bank. The complainants allege that contrary to the terms of the above said agreement the amount was disbursed. In fact it was duty bound to review the progress of construction before disbursing the amount as mentioned in the tripartite agreement. The bank cannot resile from the tripartite agreement and terms of the agreement by alleging that they (complainants) have consented to release the amount to the developer in one go. No security was taken from the builder before release.
34) We may refer herein some of the important terms of the tripartite agreement:
2) SBI shall make disbursement of the sanctioned loan by making payment to the developer directly on behalf of the borrower and payments made to the developer shall be deemed to be payments made to the borrower and borrower shall in each case be liable for the amount of the loan disbursed or his/her behalf to the developer, as though the same had been disbursed directly to him/her. It is further agreed by the borrower that SBI shall not be responsible or liable to ensure or ascertain the progress of the construction and mere demands by the borrower for disbursement would be sufficient for SBI to effect disbursement as aforesaid provided that all other sanction stipulations are complied by the borrower.
However, SBI as its sole discretion, shall disburse the loan in suitable instalments, at the request of borrower, or in suitable instalments to be decided by SBI , with reference to need or progress of construction, which decision shall be final and binding on the borrower/developer. The borrower shall be responsible for follow with the SBI to make disbursement on his/her behalf as per any agreement, payment schedule he/she may have with the developer. Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, SBI may in its sole discretion refused to disburse the loan until:
(a) Borrowers has paid his/her own contribution in full to the developer (the cost of the dwelling unit less the loan) and the progress and need of the construction justifies the disbursement requested.
3) …… The developer further agrees to total subrogation of borrower’s right to receive refund of all the monies, received by the developer from SBI on behalf of the borrower in favour SBI. In any event in which such refund becomes due and payable to the borrower under any agreement/arrangement executed/made between the developer and the borrower, the developer in particular agrees and undertakes not to pay any amount on any account or under any circumstances to the borrower by way of refund or otherwise without first receiving a written consent of SBI.
The borrower and the developer also agrees that as soon as the first disbursement is made by SBI, the mortgage/charge in favour of SBI shall, without the necessity of any deed, document or writing, fasten on the said dwelling unit and the same shall continue (notwithstanding its allotment, completion and occupation) until the loan of SBI is fully repaid with interest and all other dues.
(5) If for any reason there is an increase in the cost of the dwelling unit such increase in the cost of the dwelling unit shall be paid/borne by the borrower without any reference to SBI and until such payment is made UTI bank shall have the right to suspend further disbursement of the sanctioned loan.
7(a) Upon cancellation of the allotment of schedule property, made to the borrower for any reason, the developer shall immediately intimate about the same in writing to SBI. Upon receipt of such intimation, SBI shall notify the developer all amounts due to it from the borrower. In such an event, the developer shall forthwith pay UTI Bank all amounts received by it from SBI on behalf of the borrower within 60 days of receipt of such statement during which period, the developer shall pay interest to SBI , at the rate of interest on such amount shall be the same as agreed between the SBI and borrower in the loan agreement.”
7 (b) Further the developer hereby agrees that it shall also pay all the remaining amounts due and payable to SBI from the borrower such as defaulted payments, additional interest, etc. after deducting reasonable expenses (as agreed by the developer, and SBI ) incurred by the developer from the sale proceeds of the property. Further any such sale by the developer can be effected only after obtaining a consent from SBI.
9) That in the event of default in payment of any dues to SBI by the borrower SBI may at its sole discretion enforce the security by sale of the land and dwelling unit for which the loan has been availed by the borrower and the developer shall not raise any objection/obstruction for the same and shall accept another purchaser for the house or flat in place of the borrower, however subject to the substitute purchaser complying with the necessary requirements of the developer in this respect. If there are any dues/ outstandings payable by the borrower to the developer the same shall be subordinate/secondary to that of the liability of the borrower to SBI.
35) The complainant contends that contrary to the terms of agreement and also various guide lines for releasing loan amounts, the bank has released the entire amount in one go without considering the stages of construction to the detriments of their interests. The bank can directly pay the amount to the developer as agreed upon but not whole of the amount without even verifying the stages of construction and existence of property. It could not have released the amount without verifying the progress of construction jeopardising their claims. By referring to project programme guide lines where there was specific reference that the developer should be in business for not less than 5 years and the builder/developer has history of due completion of 3 projects and it should have completed at least 1,00,000 sft. of built up area, and that without satisfying the eligibility criterion the bank could not have sanctioned Advance Disbursement Facility (ADF for short). They contend that the developer was incorporated on 20-1-2005 and the amount was released without completion of 5 years to avail ADF contrary to stipulations.
36) The bank contends that by virtue of tripartite agreement the developer has to indemnity the bank in cases of this nature where under it was specifically mentioned that :
7(a) Upon cancellation of the allotment of schedule property, made to the borrower for any reason, the developer shall immediately intimate about the same in writing to SBI. Upon receipt of such intimation, SBI shall notify the developer all amounts due to it from the borrower. In such an event, the developer shall forthwith pay SBI all amounts received by it from SBI on behalf of the borrower within 60 days of receipt of such statement during which period, the developer shall pay interest to SBI , at the rate of interest on such amount shall be the same as agreed between the SBI and borrower in the loan agreement.”
The developer and complainant are jointly liable for any of the claim for the loan amount disbursed. In the light of above clause they are estopped from making any claim. In order to get over the payment of the amount towards EMI they were impleaded as parties. It is only a financial institution facilitating funding of the project and purchase thereof. It has nothing to do with the completion of construction.
37) Curiously the bank despite the notices of cancellation of agreements etc. and even filing complaints before this Commission and proceedings before the CLB, did not try to recover the amount paid by it to the developer invoking the above clauses. The banker knew full well the amounts were diverted for some other purpose. It did not take steps to recover from the developer, obviously, it knew it would land up in litigation, where it may not be sure for recovery of the amount. It knew full well the complainants being salaried persons it was easy for them to recover.
38) Evidently the bank did not take any steps to recover the amount, only in the event of bank sustaining loss, this indemnity clause comes into play. The bank had taken a letter from the complainants wherein they had agreed to release the amount without waiting for construction to be made. This is contrary to the guidelines and tripartite agreement. It is not known why the bank had taken such a stance when the guidelines as well as their own agreements stipulate to release the amount stage wise. The fact remains that the bank released the amounts to the developer contrary to guidelines as well as tripartite agreement to non-existent apartments.
39) The bank having been a party to the tripartite agreement cannot direct the complainants to execute such a letter without the consent of the developer in this regard. This is contrary to the terms of the tripartite agreement . By taking so called consent from the complainants to release the entire amount, the bank is offending the terms of agreement. There cannot be any objection for the developer to take it. After all it will have the entire amount without corresponding burden to fulfil. It need not construct. Had developer been joined, the complainants could have insisted the developer to construct the property and only after satisfying itself as to the phases of construction, they would have asked the banker to release the amount accordingly. There would be no meaning in releasing the entire amount in one go, the bank having agreed to release the amount in a phased manner. Solely basing on the letter taken from the complainants, the bank cannot give a go bye to tripartite agreement and release the entire amount. This would cause unjust enrichment to the developer, and loss to the complainants. The terms of the agreement in between three parties were made in order to see that no party suffers from non-implementation of terms of the agreement. The bank cannot act at its own whims and fancies, and release the amount. It cannot defend that by virtue of letters of the complainants, it was entitled to release the amount in its entirety.
40) If the bank acts contrary to the agreement and guidelines the complainants are not liable to refund the amount paid to the developer. The bank can as well recover from the developer by recoursing the above clauses. The courts will not come to the rescue of the party which violates the terms and convey benefits to one party in preference to another. It intends to cause loss to a genuine borrower by unduly favouring a defaulting and unfair customer. All this amounts to unfair trade practice.
CC 11 of 2010
CC 117 of 2010
CC 32 of 2011
41) The bank unlike in other cases while granting loan did not execute tripartite agreement along with developer and complainant. However, the very property which the complainant sought to purchase a non-existent property kept as primary security. It also extended the loan on deposit of equitable mortgage though there was a mention that if equitable mortgage is not possible it would be by registered mortgage deed. The bank alleges that loan was sanctioned taking the property as security which the complainant intends to purchase from the developer besides on the instruction of the complainant. When the bank knew full well that the property was non-existent and no doubt document was executed in favour of the complainant by the developer in order to create equitable mortgage, disbursing the loan amount to the developer cannot be said to be valid. Considering the nature of transaction between the parties, we are of the opinion that the bank could not have disbursed the amount without taking proper care and caution to find out the non-existence of the flats for which loans were sanctioned. The bank is estopped from contending that at the instance of the complainant it has disbursed the loan amount.
42) It is not as though the bank did not know that the developer has clutched the jurisdiction of the CLB. When the matter is pending with CLB, if really it intends to protect its own interest besides that of the complainants, in the light of dispute, it ought to have approached the CLB for recovery of the amounts. It did not even file the proceedings before the appropriate authority for recovery of the amount. Evidently the bank knew full well that it could recover the amount from the complainants.
43) The banks and financial institutions promising to lend moneys or sanctioning loans and the borrower investing in the project thereon will be clothed by the principles of Promisorry Estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an evolving doctrine, contours of which are not yet fully and finally demarcated. Being an equitable doctrine it should be kept elastic enough in the hands of the court to do complete justice between the parties. If the equity demands that the promissor is allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated appropriately that ought to be done. If, however, equity demands that the promissor should be precluded in the light of things done by the promisee on the faith of representation from resiling and that he should be held fast to his representation that should be done. It is a matter holding scales even between the parties to do justice between them. This is the equity implicit in the doctrine vide State of H.P. Vs. Ganesh Wood Products reported in 1995 (6) SCC 363.
44) It is legally open to the bank to take a decision in good faith in the exercise of its bonafide discretion as to whether it was safe to make advances of public funds to any particular party and arrive at a decision after examining the relevant facts and circumstances.
45) However, in the present case the complainants by issuing notice put an end to the contract as the developer disabled itself from performing its obligations. The bank did not act in good faith nor it had exercised bonafide discretion while releasing the funds.
46) Recourse can be had to a decision in Nannapaneni Venkata Rao Co-operative Sugars Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in AIR 2003 AP 515 (DB) it was held :
“Refusal on the part of the respondent bank to pay interest on the ground that opening of such account and crediting of the interest is not in accordance with the guidelines of RBI is not tenable as the respondent is solely responsible for suppressing the fact while entering into the contract.”
47) This Commission can take judicial cognizance of the fact that various banks have financed the builder obviously in view of reputation the developer was having by then, and the bank contrary to the terms of the agreement as well as guidelines disbursed the amounts keeping the interests of the complainants in jeopardy. The banks are picking and choosing certain clauses and contending that the very complainants have given authorization to them to release the amount and therefore they have released, forgetting the fact that the very financing of the project was contrary to the scheme issued in this regard. Evidently, the bank as well as the developer benefitted from these transactions. The developer has taken the amount without constructing any of the flats, and equally the bank has been collecting the amounts from the complainants towards EMI. It is a case of double jeopardy. Necessarily all this amounts to unfair trade practise as well as deficiency in service on the part of developer as well as the bank. Necessarily the complainants have to be compensated. Since terms of the agreement enable the bank to collect from the developer it can as well recover the same. The bank by violating its own rules cannot take advantage and recover the same from the complainants. This suppression of rules at the time when so called authorization taken from the complainants amounts to unfair trade practise. This cannot be allowed to happen.
48) The bank has undoubtedly violated the terms of the tripartite agreement, and released the amount even without bothering to verify as to the stage and nature of construction. In other words, the bank financed to a non-existent project or incomplete project, duping its own customers. Now the complainants would be un-necessarily hard pressed, to pay the amounts towards EMI without there being any hope of getting the apartments as the developer is under winding up proceedings. The bank cannot take advantage of its own indiscretion. This is unjust and unethical. If the bank releases the amounts contrary to tripartite agreement it has to suffer for the consequential losses. Whatever loss caused thereby it could as well approach appropriate forum for recovery of the amount from the developer, to which it has released the amount in one go. The bank under the terms entitled to recover from the developer to which it had paid the amounts. It cannot turn round and claim against the complainants. It is not under original stipulation that the bank had to pay the entire amount to the developer. The developer also agreed to refund the amount if there are cancellations of the agreements or failure to fulfil its commitments. The agreement that was arrived at earlier was fair and no party would benefit from the lapses or mistakes of the other. Therefore, the complainant are not liable to pay the EMIs.
49) The bank has to collect the loan amount plus whatever interest and other legally permissible charges from the developer and credit it to the complainant’s loan account. It shall not collect further EMI’s nor entitled to any more amount except the amount, if any, remained unpaid by the complainant towards loan granted to him. The bank has no authority to complain to CIBIL. In fact if there is a provision, the CIBIL has to enter the name of the bank, as one of the violators of guidelines of the banks.
In the result the complaints are allowed in part in following terms:
CC 117 of 2010
The developer Op1 and Op3 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, and costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of complaint.
Further the developer Op1 and Op3 are directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with penal charges etc. levied by the bank if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainants.
In case sale deed was executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Op3.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 32 of 2011
CC 51 of 2011
The developer Op1 is directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, and costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of complaint.
Further the developer Op1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with penal charges etc. levied by the bank if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainants.
In case sale deed was executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 14 of 2010
CC 53 of 2011
The developer Op1 and Op2 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
Further the developer Op1 and Op2 are directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with penal charges etc. levied by the bank if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainants.
In case sale deed was executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Op2.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 83 of 2010
CC 92 of 2010
CC 94 of 2010
The developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, and costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the complaint.
Further the developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4 are directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with penal charges etc. levied by the bank if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainants.
In the complaints where sale deeds were executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Ops 2 to 4.
The complaints against Op5 is dismissed without costs.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 85 of 2010
CC 86 of 2010
The developer Op1 is directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, and costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of complaint.
Further the developer Op1 is directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with penal charges etc. levied by the bank if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainants.
In case sale deed was executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1.
The complaints against Ops 3 to 16 are dismissed without costs.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
CC 11 of 2010
CC 19 of 2010
CC 54 of 2010
CC 57 of 2010
The developer Op1 and Op15 are directed to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest @ 12% p.a., from respective dates till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, and costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the complaints.
Further the developer Op1 and Op15 are directed to refund the amount disbursed by the bank to it along with penal charges etc. levied by the bank if any, failing which the bank is liable to collect, and credit the same to the loan account of the complainants.
In case sale deed was executed the complainants shall re-convey the same to the developer on compliance of above directions. The registration charges and stamp duty etc. shall be borne by the developer Op1 and Op15.
The complaints Ops 2 to 14 is dismissed without costs.
Time for compliance eight weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined for Complainant None
Witnesses examined for Opposite Parties None
CC No 117 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Form 32
Ex A-2 Agreement of sale
Ex A-3 Letter of Bank dt : 15.12.2006
Ex A-4 Legal notice with postal acknowledgement(2) and receipts (2)
Ex A-5 legal notice with ack.
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 Statement of accounts dt 9.2.2012
Ex B-2 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
Ex B-3 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-4 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-5 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
CC No 32 of 2011
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Agreement for sale dt : 29.5.2007
Ex A-2 Letter dt : 13.6.2007 issued by SBI Hyderabad
Ex A-3 Letter dt : 19.6.2007 issued by SBI Hyderabad
Ex A-4 Statement of Account of SBI, Hyderabad.
Ex A-5 Statement of Account of OP No. 1 dt : 10.6.2008
Ex A-6 Receipt No. 6029 dt : 21.6.2008 issued by OP No.1 for Rs.2,74, 389/-
Ex A-7 Receipt No. 6030 dt : 21.6.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-
Ex A-8 Receipt No. 6031 dt : 21.6.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-
Ex A-9 Receipt No. 6031 dt : 21.6.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-
Ex A-10 Letter dt : 22.6.2009 addressed to OP no.1
Ex A-11 Reply notice dt : 2.7.2010 to the complainants
Ex A-12 Form No.32 of Incorporation certificate of maytas properties.
Ex A-13 Master Circular Home Loans
For the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter of Authority
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-9 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-10 Letter of complainant no.2 to Bank dt 22.12.2007
Ex B-11 Statement of account
Ex B-12 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 51 of 2011
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Form No.32
Ex A-2 Copy of Agreement of Sale dt : 17.11.2006
Ex A-3 Copy of Tripartite Agreement dt : 18.12.2006
Ex A-4 Copy of Agreement of sale dt : 23.4.2008
Ex A-5 Copy of Bank Sanction letter dt : 15.12.2006
Ex A-6 copy of letter of OP no.1 dt : 5.8.2008
Ex A-7 copy of complaint letter dt : 6.6.2008
Ex A-8 copy of OP no.1 letter dt : 12.8.2008
Ex A-9 copy of OP no.2 letter dt : 28.8.2008
Ex A-10 copy of complainant letter dt : 22.8.2008
Ex A-11 copy of legal notice dt : 1.11.2010
Ex A-12 original acknowledgement cards dt : 6.11.2010 & 20.11.2010
Ex A-13 copy of reply notice dt : 16.11.2010
Ex A-14 copy of legal notice issued by OP no.2
Ex A-15 copy of judgment in WP No. 4205 of 2008
Ex A-16 copy of GPA dt : 11.12.2010
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B9 Statement of account
Ex B-10 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 14 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Agreement of Sale dt : 5.11.2006
Ex A-2 Constructions Agreement No. 7430 of 2008 dt : 5.7.2008
Ex A-3 Tripartite Agreement dt : 13.6.2007
Ex A-4 Home Loan Sanction letter dt : 13.6.2007
Ex A-5 Legal notices dt : 2-2-2010
Ex A-6 Postal receipts and acknowledgements dt : 4.2.2010
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter of Authority
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-9 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-10 copy of email dt : 9.12.2007 by OP 2 & 3 to complainant
Ex B-11 Statement of accounts dt : 5.6.2010 by OP 2 & 3 to complainant.
Ex B-12 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 53 of 2011
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Form No.32
Ex A-2 GPA
Ex A-3 Copy of Agreement of sale dt : 30.12.2006
Ex A-4 Statement of Account
Ex A-5 Legal notice with ack.
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-2 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-3 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-4 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-6 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-7 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-8 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B9 Statement of account
Ex B-10 Application OA No. 97 of 2011 filed before the Hon’ble Debts,
Recovery Tribunal Visakhapatnam.
Ex B-11 Sanction letter dt : 31.3.2007
Ex B-12 Memorandum of term Loan Agreement for Home Loan Granted to Public.
Ex B-13 Tripartite Agreement dt : 3.4.2007
Ex B-14 Statement of Loan Account No. 30156625580
CC No 83 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Agreement of sale dt : 18.10.2006
Ex A-2 Tripartite Agreement dt : 27/1/2007
Ex A-3 Home loan sanction letter dt : 27.1.2007
Ex A-4 Copy of letter of Incorporation dt : 31.12.2007
Ex A-5 Copies of Form-32 dt : 2.1.2008, 1.9.2008 and 18.3.2009
Ex A-6 copies of legal notices dt : 01.5.2010
Ex A-7 Postal receipts and Acknowledgments cards dt : 14.7.2010
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B 5 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-9 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 92 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Tripartite agreement dt : 30.8.2008
Ex A-2 construction agreement dt : 24.10.2008
Ex A-3 copy of Home Loan sanction letter dt : 28.8.2008
Ex A-4 copy of GPA
Ex A-5 letter of incorporation dt : 3.7.2007
Ex A-6 form no.32
Ex A-7 copies of legal notices dt : 26.7.2010
Ex A-8 postal receipts and acknowledgements
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-9 Reply notice dt : 6.9.2010 issued by the Bank to the counsel for the complainant.
Ex B-10 postal receipt dated : 9.9.2010
Ex B-11 statement of account.
Ex B-12 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 94 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Agreement of Sale dt 05.1.2007
Ex A-2 Tripartite agreement dt : 10.5.2007
Ex A-3 Construction agreement dt : 27.1.2009
Ex A-4 copy of letter of Incorporation dt : 31.7.2009
Ex A-5 copy of form no.32 1.9.2008, 2-1-2008 and 18.3.2009
EX A-6 copy of legal notices dt : 30.6.2010
Ex A-7 postal receipts and ack dt : 1.7.2010
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-9 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 85 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Pamphlet issued by SBI
Ex A-2 Agreement for sale dt : 28.11.2006
Ex A-3 Tripartite Agreement dt : 26.12.2006
Ex A-4 Receipt dt 13.9.2006
Ex A-5 Receipt dt : 30.9.2006
Ex A-6 Receipt dt : 30.4.2008
Ex A-7 Letter for refund and compensation dt : 25.5.2010
Ex A-8 postal receipt dt : 24.6.2010
Ex A-9 acknowledgement
Ex A-10 Legal notice dt 26.1.2010
Ex A-11 Reply notice dt : 11.2.2010
Ex A-12 postal receipt dt 14.2.2010
Ex A-13 acknowledgement
Ex A-14 Loan Sanction letter dt 26.12.2006
Ex A-15 Broacher for may tas hill county project
Ex A-16 form no.32 dt : 23.11.2005
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter of Authority
Ex B5 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-9 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-10 Statement of account dt : 10.2.2012
Ex B-11 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 86 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Pamphlet issued by SBI
Ex A-2 Agreement for sale dt :18.10.2006
Ex A-3 Letter for refund and compensation
Ex A-4 certificate of posting dt 15.7.2010
Ex A-5 Mail from SBI dt : 27.3.2010
Ex A-6 Letter for refund dt : 25.5.2010
Ex A-7 Loan sanction letter dt : 26.12.2006
Ex A-8 Brochure for maytas hill county project
Ex A-9 Form no. 32
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter of Authority
Ex B5 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
CC No 11 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Agreement of Sale dt : 5.8.2007
Ex A-2 Home Loan Sanction letter dt 24.9.2007
Ex A-3 Copy of legal notice
Ex A-4 copies of postal receipts and acks
Ex A-5 Copy of GPA
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter of Authority
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-9 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-10 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
Ex B-9 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-10 Statement of account dt : 10.2.2012
Ex B-11 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 19 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Agreement of Sale dt : 27.12.2006
Ex A-2 Legal notices dt : 14.12.2009
Ex A-3 Home Loan Sanction letter dt : 27.1.2007
Ex A-4 Postal receipts and acknowledgements dt : 14.12.2009
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter of Authority
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-9 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-10 Loan application
Ex B-11 Tripartite Agreement
Ex B-12 Statement of account dt 6.8.2010
Ex B-13 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 54 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Agreement of Sale dt 09.1.2007
Ex A-2 Tripartite agreement dt : 15.6.2007
Ex A-3 Home Loan Sanction letter dt : 21.3.2007
Ex A-4 copies of legal notices
Ex A-5 postal receipts and acknowledgements
Ex A-6 copy of GPA
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter of Authority
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-9 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-10 State Bank of India letter dt : 21.3.2007
Ex B-11 Complainant letter to SBI dt : 15.6.2007
Ex B-12 complainant letter to SBI dt : 14.9.2007
Ex B-13 Complainant letter to SBI dt 12.11.2007
Ex B-14 Complainant letter to SBI dt : 7.2.2008
Ex B-15 Copy of arbitration order case no. 11 /2011
CC No 57 of 2010
Documents marked for the complainants
Ex A-1 Agreement of Sale dt 16.11.2006
Ex A-2 Tripartite agreement dt : 8.2.2007
Ex A-3 copies of legal notices dt : 02.02.2007
Ex A-4 Copy of GPA
Ex A-5 copy of legal notice
Ex A-6 postal receipts
Documents marked for the opposite parties :
Ex B-1 CLB order dated : 5.3.2009
Ex B-2 CLB order dated : 13.1.2011
Ex B-3 Resignation and appointment of Directors Form-32
Ex B-4 Letter of Authority
Ex B-5 Letter to customers with respect to commencement
of project dt : 25.2.2011
Ex B-6 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction commenced dt : 8.4.2011
Ex B-7 Letter to Hill county Home Owners dt : 17.6.2011
Ex B-8 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 8.9.2011
Ex B-9 Letter to customers with respect to progress of construction dt : 25.10.2011.
Ex B-10 Letter dated : 14.10.2006 from complainant to OP no.16 requesting to grant housing loan by saying that he had already paid Rs.11,57,544/-
Ex B-11 Receipt dated : 22.9.2006 for Rs.11,57, 544/-
Ex B-12 Letter dated : 8.12.2006 from complainant to OP no. 16 requesting to sanction and to sanction and release as per schedule.
Ex B-13 Letter dated : 8.2.2007 from complainant to OP No. 16 requesting to release 1st instalment.
Ex B-14 Letter from complainant to OP no.16 requesting instalment by 15.3.2007 directly to OP no.1 by enclosing letter dated : 26.2.2007
Ex B-15 Letter dated : 29.5.2007 from complainant to OP no.16 requesting to release 3rd instalment by enclosing payment due notice
Ex B-16 copy of email, dated 08-06-2007 sent by the complaint by enclosing payment due notice and requesting to release 3rd instalment by 15.6.2007
Ex B-17 Statement of account.
Ex B-18 Copy of arbitration order in case no. 11 /2011
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
27/04/2012
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
