Scribd
Upload
19 views7 pages

Before The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra Mumbai

Uploaded by

fitness in
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views7 pages

Before The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra Mumbai

Uploaded by

fitness in
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI.


CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 17 OF 326

Shri Kalam Adam Yete


Ms. Subuhi Kalam Yete ,,,, Complainant

Versus

A-Surti Developers Private Ltd …..Opposite party

APPLICATION FOR UNDER SECTION


2(A)
OF CONTEMPT OF THE COURT
ACT.

1. The Complainant as Purchase is booked a flat with


Opposite party named herein as A-Surti Developers
private Limited, as vendor duly represented by the
Opposite Party and Complainants concluded a Letter
of Allotment dated 24th December, 2013, duly signed
by the two directors of the opposite Party and the
Complainant as Purchaser wherein the Opposite party
has acknowledged receipt of Rs.15,50,000/- as shown
at Exhibit “B” and the total amount paid to opposite
party vide receipts annexed to the Compilation of
Documents at Exhibit “A” colly (i) to (vi) is for
Rs.21,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Fifty

1
thousand Only) toward part Payment of the total
consideration of Rs. 66,89,250/- (Rupees Sixty Six
Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) as
the agreed price by and between the complainant and
the opposite party of the allotted Flat No. 301 in “A”
wing on the third floor in the building “Universal
Garden II which has been renamed as “Universal
Cubicle” on the land bearing CTS Nos. 288A and 292
at village Bandivali, Taluka Andheri, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102 in Mumbai Suburban District
alongwith one stilt car parking by the Opposite Party.

2. The Complainants upon payment of Rs. 21,50,000/-


towards the Consideration and Rs.70,505(the amount
was mistakenly noted as Rs.60,505/- in the
Complainant) towards the service Tax which forms
more than 32% of the total consideration and as per
section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act,
1963, once the prospective purchaser(Complainants)
have paid 20% of the total consideration, it is
mandatory for the builder/promoter(Opposite Party) to
get the Agreement for sale registered under section 4
of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, as well
as violated under section 13(1) of the RERA Act, 2016
both of which have been violated.

3. The Complainants as purchaser of the said Flat hereby


state that the Opposite Party had issued a letter of
Allotment dated 24th December, 2013 with the details

2
of payment Schedule and the terms of Allotment
without taking into consideration the law of the Land
i.e. Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, whereby it
is mandatory for the Opposite party to execute and
get the Agreement for Sale duly registered once 20%
of the Cost Consideration is received by the Opposite
Party. So having Paid Rs.21,50,000/- as part Payment
of the total consideration which makes up to 32% and
having paid Service Tax of Rs.70,505/- which is again
30% of the total service Tax as charged by the
Opposite Party, the Opposite Party failed and
neglected to register the Agreement.

4. The Complainants had submitted 4 Cheques total


amount of Rs. 17,00,00/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh
only) as further part Payment which were not
deposited by the Opposite party in its account for
reason best known to them and they said Cheques are
annexed to the Complaint as Exhibit “D”.

5. The Complainants were ready to execute regular


Agreement for sale and ready to pay stamp duty as
well as registration charges of the said flat but
opposite party avoided the request of the
Complainants. If the Opposite party not ready to
execute the Agreement for sale after the received
32% amount of sale price as well as Cash of

3
Rs.6,00,000/- of Garage then how can be pay bear the
terms and condition of the said Allotment letter.

6. The Complainants states that the Complainants have


paid consideration amount of Rs.21,50,000/- out of
Rs.66,89,250/- to the Opposite Party and the cash
amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- regarding Garage charges
paid to the Opposite party but till date not given
receipt of the said cash transactions. The
complainants are further states that the Complainants
had given amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Opposite
Party on 15.03.2015 by way of cheques but the
Opposite party had not taken the said Cheques.
Thereafter again on 25.02.2016, the Complainants
have given cheques amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the
Opposite party but same was denied.

7. The Opposite party is misguiding the Hon’ble court


because the Complainant never claiming the said
purchase amount but they are seeking executing the
Register Agreement of sale. The Complainants states
that after the paid 32% amount to the Opposite party,
the Opposite Party was assured to the Complainant “I
will execute the said Agreement of sale as earlier as
possible. The Complainants various correspondence
with opposite party regarding the said transaction but
same was avoided to the Complainants hence the
above complaint is filed.

4
8. The Complainants states that the Complainants have
paid consideration amount of Rs.21,50,000/- out of
Rs.66,89,250/- to the Opposite Party and the cash
amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- regarding Garage charges
paid to the Opposite party but till date not given
receipt of the said cash transactions. The
complainants are further states that the Complainants
were given amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Opposite
Party on 15.03.2015 by way of cheques but the
Opposite party was not taken the said Cheques.
Thereafter again on 25.02.2016, the Complainants
have given cheques amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the
Opposite party but same was denied.

9. The Complainants states the Complainant No.1 had


February,2024, visited to the suit premises to last
month and saw that the flat is open hence the
Complainant No.1 asked the person in that about why
is he in the flat. The person said his names is Mr.
Shamim Qureshi and he was residing in the flat with
his family on a rental basis. The flat was rented to Mr.
Shamim Qureshi by the builder staff Mr. Patil.
immediately the Complainant No.1 informed to the
Society through Application regarding the said
situation. The complainants’ further states that if the
court has sealed the suit premises, then how can the
lock be broken of the suit premises.

5
10. The Complainants states that the above the Hon’ble
court has sealed the suit premises as per the last
order of this Hon’ble court.

Therefore, humble request to this Hon’ble court my


application may be consider for take action against the
Opposite Party because the Opposite Party has violated
order of this Hon’ble Court.

Mumbai dated 13th March, 2024

Advocate for
Complainant

6
7

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy