Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/167/2017

K.A.Balaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARE Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Directors - Opp.Party(s)

B.Thilak Narayanan-Compt.,

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                      BEFORE    Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE  R. SUBBIAH           ::      PRESIDENT                       

                                          Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 CC. No. 167/2017

                                                             DATED THIS THE  29^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

K.A.Balaji,

S/o K.M.Abathbandavan,

Previously residing at F-2, Meridian,

RC Prince Gardenia,

97, Perambur Redhills Road,

Kalpalayam    

Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099   

And presently residing at

Flat 1103, 11^th Floor,

Woodville – Rodas Enclave,

Hiranandani Estate,

Patlipada,

Thane West – 400 607, Maharashtra                             ..Complainant

 

                                                    Vs

 

SARE Reality Projects Private Limited,

A company having Regional office at

First Floor, SKCL Icon,

C42 & C43, CIPET Road,

Thiru.Vi.Ka Industrial Estate,

Guindy, Chennai 600 032

Represented by its Directors                                        ..Opposite party

 

Counsel for the Complainant                        :  M/s B.Thilak Narayanan

Counsel for the Opposite party                     : M/s Edwin Solomon

 

      This  complaint  is coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :                                               

 

                                                 Docket order

 

       No representation for complainant. opposite party present. This complaint is posted today for appearance of complainant and for steps to implead the Resolution Professional or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M,  the complainant was not present  hence,  passed over and  called again at 12.30 noon, then also the complainant has not appeared. Steps also not taken. Hence we are of the view that keeping the complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.   The complaint is dismissed for default No order as to cost.

         Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT