Mudhit Madanlal Gupta Vs Lavasa Corporation Ltd.

Decided On	30 Oct 2017
Appellant	Mudhit Madanlal
Respondent	Lavasa Corporation Ltd.
Downlod	Click Here

Summary

Case Summary

The Complainant stated in his complaint that the agreement for sale was executed on 22^ndApril 2010 and the mentioned date of handover the possession was on or before 21^stApril 2012. But, the possession is not yet been received. Moreover, the respondent has put a revised date of completion on MahaRERA website as 31^stDecember 2020.

During the hearing the Advocate of the respondent pointed out that the complainant has filed a complaint on the same matter in the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. Wherein, parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of said apartment.

For the above foresaid fact, the complainant pleaded that while registering with the MahaRERA, the complainant given a declaration in which it contended that this complaint is not pending before in any Court of Law or any other Authority.

Conclusion by MahaRERA

According to the MahaRERA, from the above matter it is clear that the same matter is already pending in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. In these Circumstances, the complaint filed with MahaRERA is not tenable.

Hence, the complaint is dismissed.