BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY

AUTHORITY,
AT GURUGRAM, HARYANA
Complaint Case No: RERA-GRG-_____-2020

MEMO OF PARTIES

In the Matter of: .

Mr. Priyankesh Sharma

S/o Shri Om NarayanSharma
B-21, Vaastu Apartment
Plot No. 70, Sector-55
Gurgaon …COMPLAINANT 1

Mr. AkhileshSharma
S/o Shri Om NarayanSharma
B-21, Vaastu Apartment
Plot No. 70, Sector-55
Gurgaon …COMPLAINANT 2

VERSUS

BPTP Limited
Through its Directors,
Regd. Office at:
M-11, Middle Circle,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi – 110001, India
…RESPONDENT
Details of claim: -

1. Particulars of the complainant:

(i) Name of complainant:-Mr.Priyankesh Sharmaand Mr

Akhilesh Sharma

(ii) Address of the complainant:-B-21, Vaastu Apartment, Plot

No. 70, Sector-55, Gurgaon

(iii) Address for service of all: B-21, Vaastu Apartment, Plot No.

70, Sector-55, Gurgaon

(iv) Contact Details (phone number-mail, Fax, Number etc.): -

(Ph)- 9871275599

Email – akhilesh@wishcoinrealty.com

2. Particulars of the respondents.

(i) Name of respondent: - BPTP Limited

(ii) Office address of the respondent: Registered office:-

M-11, Middle Circle,Connaught Circus, New Delhi –

110001, India

(iii) Addressfor service of all notices:

M-11, Middle Circle,Connaught Circus, New Delhi –

110001, India

(iv) Contact Details (Phone number-mail, Fax Number etc.)

Email- customercare@bptp.com

Phone: (+91 124) 3852 2728

COMPLAINANTS
 THROUGH

KOHLI & KOHLI LAW ASSOCIATES

COUNSEL(S) FOR THE COMPLAINANT
V 3/11, DLF PHASE III, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA

ADVOCATE KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

D/383/79
+91-8860332404
forkuldeepkohli@gmail.com

ADVOCATE KREETI CHHABRA

PH/6584/2019
+919896613598
kreeti.chhabra.kc@gmail.com

PLACE: GURUGRAM, HARYANA

DATE: ____.4.2020
 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY,
AT GURUGRAM, HARYANA

COMPLAINT NO. RERA-GRG-XXXX- 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. PRIYANKESH SHARMAAND ORS.

…COMPLAINANTS

Versus

BPTP LIMITED

…RESPONDENT
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY ACT, 2016 R/W RULE 28 OF
THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND
DEVELOPMENT) RULES, 2017FOR VIOLATION OF
SECTION 12,14,18 & 19

INDEX

S.No. CONTENTS PAGE No.

1.
Proforma-B

2.
List of dates

3.
Brief Facts

4.
Issues to be decided

5. Relief Sought
6.
Affidavit

ANNEXURE C/1
7.
The Copy of receipts for the booking

amount.
ANNEXURE C/2

8. Copyof the provisional allotment

letter.

ANNEXURE C/3
9.
Copy of the agreement to sell

ANNEXURE C/4
10.
Copy of the receipt dated 14.02.2013

11. ANNEXURE C/5

Copy of the receipt dated 20.03.2013

12.
ANNEXURE C/6

The copy of the Buyer’s Agreement

ANNEXURE C/7
13.
A copy of the statement of account

provided by the respondent

14. ANNEXURE C/8

A copy of the Offer of Possession

15.
Vakalatnama.

Complainants

THROUGH
 KOHLI & KOHLI LAW ASSOCIATES
COUNSEL(S) FOR THE COMPLAINANT
V 3/11, DLF PHASE III, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA

ADVOCATE KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

D/383/79
+91-8860332404
forkuldeepkohli@gmail.com

ADVOCATE KREETI CHHABRA

PH/6584/2019
+919896613598
kreeti.chhabra.kc@gmail.com

PLACE: GURUGRAM, HARYANA

DATE: ___.04.20
 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

COMPLAINT CASE NO: RERA-GRG-XXX-2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. PRIYANKESHSHARMA AND ORS.

…COMPLAINANTS

Versus
BPTP LIMITED

…RESPONDENT
LIST OF DATES

That the complainants were subjected to unethical trade

practice as well as subjected to harassment in the name of one

sided Buyer’s Agreement.TheRespondent not only failed to

adhere to the terms and conditions of Buyer’sAgreement dated

19.07.2012 but also illegally extracted money from the

complainants by stating false promises and statements. The

respondent took the advantage of the complainants and the

complainantswerealwayskeptin dark about the construction

and the respondent company did not leave any stone

unturned to illegally extract money. The brief facts leading to

file the present petition are as under:

S.No. DATE EVENT

1. 2011 In 2011, the Respondent Company issued
 an advertisement announcing a Group

Housing colony Project called ‘Astaire

Garden’ situated at Sector 70A, Gurugram,

Haryana and thereby invited applications

from prospective buyers for the purchase

of flats in the said project. Respondent

confirmed that the project had got Building

Plan Approval from the authority.

12.03.2012 That on 12.03.2012, the original allottee

who was caught in the web of false promises

of the agents of the respondent company,

paid an initial amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-

(Seven Lakhs Only)vide

Cheque no. 41 dated12.03.2012 drawn on

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.and was

acknowledged by the respondent vide

receipts no.2011/1400051914dated

22.03.2012 and Rs. 18,025/- via Cheque

no. 43 dated 12.03.2012 drawn on Kotak

Mahindra Bank Ltd. and was acknowledged

by the respondent vide receipts no.

2011/1400051918 dated 22.03.2012

filled the Application form for one flat/Unit

and opted for Construction Linked

Payment Plan. The original allottee was

 allotted one unit being B-54-GF in the above

said project. The Copy of the receipts

isannexed herein as Annexure 1.

The respondent company issued a

provisional allotment letter dated

28.03.2012 allotting a Flat bearing unit no.

B-54-GF(hereinafter referred to as ‘unit’)

measuring super built up area of

28.03.2012 approximately 2512 Sq. Ft. in the aforesaid

project of the developer for a total sale

consideration of Rs 3,305.33/ Sq. Ft. Copy

of the provisional allotment letter is

annexed herein as Annexure2

That on 01.02.2013, the original allottee

executed an agreement to sell in favor of

01.02.2013 the complainant. The copy of the

agreement to sell is annexed herein as

Annexure 3.
Rs. 901186 Amount is missing please
30-11-2012
check
31.01.2013 That the respondent raised a demand of

Rs.4,4,49,556.99 vide Demand No.

0090616923/ 0090616925/ 0090616926/

0090616927/ 0090616928/ 0090616929/

0090616930 dated 31.01.2013 against the

instalment no. 2 i.e. Within 150 days from

 the date of booking which was duly paid by

the original allottee vide cheque no.

922340 dated 13.02.2012 drawn on SBI

for Rs 4,2,56,900/-. The same was

acknowledged by the respondent via

Receipt No. 2012/1400040091 dated

14.02.2013.

The copy of the receipts are annexed

herein as Annexure4
That the respondent raised a demand of

Rs. 6,08,502.80/- which was payable upon

completion of brick work vide Demand No.

0090628996 dated 11.03.2013 which was

duly paid by the complainant vide cheque

no. 457404 dated 19.03.2013 drawn on

11.03.2013
SBI for Rs 578,075/- which was

acknowledged by the respondent vide

receipt no. 2012/1400044932 dated

20.03.2013 respectively.The copy of the

receipts are annexed herein as Annexure5

19.07.2012 That a Buyer’s Agreement was also

executed with the complainant on

19.07.2012. Copy of the Buyer’s Agreement

is annexed herein as Annexure6

The complainant having dreams of his own

one residential flat signed the agreement in

 the hope that he shall be delivered the flat

within 36 months i.e. in the year 2015 as

per clause 5.1 of the agreement. The

complainant was also handed over one

detailed payment plan which was

construction linked plan. It is unfortunate

that the dream of the one flat of the

complainant was shattered due to lethargic

attitude of the respondent.

The Complainant contacted the

2013 to 2020
respondents on several occasions and was
regularly in touch with the Respondent
through multiple telephonic conversations
on very regular basis. The Respondents
were never able to give any satisfactory
response to the complainant regarding the
status of the construction and were never
definite about the delivery of the
possession.
The respondents kept posting wrong or old
images about the construction updates on
their website and thus misrepresenting the
facts.

2012 As per the demands raised by the

to respondent, based on the payment plan,

2020 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.

9,837,698.71towards the said Unit against

total demands of Rs. 10,672,514.71 raised

 by the respondent from 2012 till 2020.

Copy of the Statement of Account provided

by the Respondentis annexed herein as

Annexure7.

The complainants kept pursuing the

matter with the representatives of the

respondent as to when will they deliver the

project and why construction is going on at

such a slow pace, but to no avail. Some or

the other reason was being given in

terms of some dispute with the land

owners and shortage of labor etc. etc.

That the respondent sent a letter cum

invoice no. BPTP/145143/1639 dated
25.09.2017 for Offer of Possession for Unit
No. B-54-GF with demand of Rs
2,655,591.94/- including base price of Rs
7,870,752.32, EDC/IDC charges Rs
25.09.2017
387,752.32, club membership charges
Rs2,00,000.00, Cost Escalation charges
Rs834,436.16/-, Service Tax
Rs230,197.00, VAT 79,935.65, GST
250,468.00 etc.
The copy of the Offer of Possession is

annexed herein as Annexure8.

That losing all the hope from the

respondent company and having shattered

and scattered dreams of flat and also

 losing considerable amount (as per the

Builder Buyer agreement dated

19.07.2012), the complainant

isconstrained to approach this Hon’ble

tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

Hence this petition.

Complainants

THROUGH

KOHLI & KOHLI LAW ASSOCIATES

COUNSEL(S) FOR THE COMPLAINANT
V 3/11, DLF PHASE III, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA

ADVOCATE KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

D/383/79
+91-8860332404
forkuldeepkohli@gmail.com

ADVOCATE KREETI CHHABRA

PH/6584/2019
+919896613598
kreeti.chhabra.kc@gmail.com

PLACE: GURUGRAM, HARYANA

DATE: ___.04.2020
 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

Complaint Case No: RERA-GRG-___-2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. PRIYANKESH SHARMA AND ORS.

…COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

BPTP LTD.
…RESPONDENT

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

SECTION 12,14,18 & 19 MADE UNDER SECTION 31 OF

THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT)

ACT, 2016 READ WITH RULE 28 OF THE HARYANA REAL

ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) RULES, 2017

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWTH:-

A. That the complainants Mr.Priyankesh Sharma and Mr.

Akhilesh Sharma , are respectable and law abiding citizens of

this nation, residing atFlat No. B-21, Vaastu Apartments,

Sector-55, Gurgaon, Haryana 122003.

B. That the complainant was subjected to unethical trade

practice as well as subject of harassment in the name and

guise of a biased, arbitrary and one sided Builder Buyer

Agreement. The respondent not only failed to adhere to the

terms and conditions of Builder Buyers agreement dated

19.07.2012 but also illegally extracted money from the

complainant by making false promises and statements.

C. That in the year 2012, the original allottee, was searching for a

suitable flat/accommodations as per his standard and budget.

The original allottee while searching for a home visited the

office of the respondent company. The agents of the

respondent company told the original allottee about the

moonshine reputation of the company and the agents of the

respondent company made huge presentations about his

project namely Astaire Gardenat sector 70A, Gurugram and

also assured that they have delivered several projects in the

National Capital Region. The respondents handed over one

brochure to the complainant which portrayed the project like

heaven and tried to hold the complainant’s interest in every

possible way and incited the complainant for payments. The

original allottee was trapped in the hands of the agents of the

respondent company like a fish.

D. That on 12.03.2012, the original allottee who was caught in

the web of false promises of the agents of the respondent

 company, paid an initial amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Seven

Lakhs Only) vide

E. Cheque no. 41 dated 12.03.2012 drawn on Kotak Mahindra

Bank Ltd. and was acknowledged by the respondent vide

receipts no.2011/1400051914 dated 22.03.2012 and Rs.

18,025/- via Cheque no. 43 dated 12.03.2012 drawn on Kotak

Mahindra Bank Ltd. and was acknowledged by the respondent

vide receipts no. 2011/1400051918 dated 22.03.2012 filled

the Application form for one flat/Unit and opted for

Construction Linked Payment Plan. The complainant was

allotted one unit beingB-54-GF in the above said project. The

Copy of the receipts is annexed herein as Annexure 1.

F. The respondent company issued a provisional allotment letter

dated 28.03.2012 allotting a Flat bearing unit no. B-54-

GF(hereinafter referred to as ‘unit’) measuring super built up

area of 2512 Sq. Ft sq. ft. (233.37 sq. mtr.) in the aforesaid

project of the developer for a total sale consideration of Rs

Rs3,305.33/ Sq. Ft. Copy of the provisional allotment letter is

annexed herein as Annexure 2.

G. That on 01.02.2013, the original allottee executed an

agreement to sell in favor of the complainant. The copy of the

agreement to sell is annexed herein as Annexure 3.

H. That the respondent raised a demand of Rs.44,49,556.99 vide

Demand No. 0090616923/ 0090616925/ 0090616926/

0090616927/ 0090616928/ 0090616929/ 0090616930 dated

 31.01.2013 against the instalment no. 2 i.e. Within 150 days

from the date of booking which was duly paid by the original

allottee vide cheque no. 922340 dated 13.02.2012 drawn on

SBI for Rs 4,256,900/-. The same was acknowledged by the

respondent via Receipt No. 2012/1400040091 dated

14.02.2013. The copy of the receipts are annexed herein as

Annexure4.

I. That the respondent raised a demand of Rs. 608,502.80/-

which was payable upon completion of brick work vide

Demand No. 0090628996 dated 11.03.2013 which was duly

paid by the complainant vide cheque no. 457404 dated

19.03.2013 drawn on SBI for Rs 578,075/- which was

acknowledged by the respondent vide receipt no.

2012/1400044932 dated 20.03.2013 respectively. The copy of

the receipts are annexed herein as Annexure 5

J. That the respondent company sent one detailed Builder

Buyers Agreement to the complainant and requested for

signing the agreement which was signed on 19.07.2012 and

returned to the Builder, wherein as per the clause 1.2 (a) Page

No. 7 of Buyer’s Agreement, the total sale value of Rs _______/-

of the unit (Total consideration) payable by the allottee that is

the complainant to the company i.e. the Respondent includes

the basic sale price ( Basic Sale Price / BSP) of Rs.

Rs.7,870,869/-, Development Charges of Rs. 387,752.32, and

club membership charges of Rs. 200,000.00, Interest Free

 Maintenance Charges (IFMS) and Power backup installation

charges of Rs 150,000/- per KVA.The detailed

Buyer’sAgreement is annexed herein as Annexure6.

K. That the complainant having dreams of his own residential

flat, signed the agreement on 19.07.2012 in the hope that he

shall be delivered the flat within 36 months Plus six months

grace period i.e. by 19.11.2015as per clause 5.1 of the

agreementPage No.13. The complainant was also handed

over one detailed payment plan Annexure C(page 32 of the

said agreement), which was construction linked plan. It is

unfortunate that the dream of possessing one flat of the

complainant was shattered due to the capriciousness,

dishonest and diabolical attitude of the respondent.

L. That as per the demands raised by the respondent, based on

the payment plan, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.

9,837,698.71 towards the said Plot against total demands of

Rs.1,0,6,72,514.71 (this amount is incuded Stamp duty and

IFMS rest all amount is paid) from 2012 till 2020. Copy of the

Statement of Account provided by the Respondent is annexed

herein as Annexure7.

M.It is very unfortunate that the complainant had become

helpless and had to run from pillar to post for the possession

of his flat though he had made paymentof the agreed

 amount/consideration as per the construction linked plan

attached to the Buyer’s Agreement.

N. That it is quite clear that the respondent is involved in

unethical/unfair practices so as to extract money from the

complainant despite the fact that the project has not been

completed and the respondent company was capriciously

involved in demanding money illegally from the complainant.

O. That the respondent sent a letter cum invoice no.

BPTP/145143/1639 dated 25.09.2017 for Offer of Possession

for Unit No. B-54-GF with demand of Rs 2,6,55,591.94/-

7,8,70,752.32, EDC/IDC charges Rs 387,752.32, club

membership charges Rs2,00,000.00, Cost Escalation charges

Rs8,34,436.16/-, Service Tax Rs230,197.00, VAT 79,935.65,

GST 2,50,468.00 etc.

The copy of the letter for Intimation of Possession is annexed

herein as Annexure 8.

a. That the entire payment plan is a construction linked payment plan

and therefore the money for the club should also have been

collected based on the actual construction of the club on the site.

b. That an amount of Rs. 2 lakh was collected on30.03.2012 And the

construction of the club has not even been started till today.

c. The club is an important component of an apartment complex.

 d. If the club is in the process of being constructed, the demand for

collection of the money for the club based on the corresponding

construction on the site, would have been justified

e. That since the club building is yet to be started and the money has

been collected almost seven years back, it is not only unjustified but

illegal on the part of the Respondent to have collected this money.

f. That the Respondent should return this money with interest @ 18%

per annum

g. That the Respondent should prepare a plan for completion of the

club and demand money from members in instalments upto the date

of completion of the club.

h. Regarding club membership charges, the club is an important

component of an apartment complex.

All these facilities are not available in complex even today and

even after repeated follow ups with respondent, no dates have

been shared by respondent by which this basic infrastructure

will be made available to complainants for which they have

paid money more than 3 years back.

P. The act of the Respondent of handing over the possession of

the property through a hand over letter or through a sale deed

can at best be termed as the Respondent having discharged of

its liabilities and obligations as enumerated in the Agreement.

However, the taking over of the possession does not in any

 way come in the way of the complainant seeking interest for

the delay in delivery of the possession.  The said delay

amounts to a deficiency in the services offered by the

Respondent to the complainant.  The right to seek interest for

the deficiency in services offered by the Respondent was never

given up by the complainants.  Therefore the complainant

cannot at all be said to have relinquished his legal right to

claim interest from the Respondent merely because the basis

of the unit has been taken by him in terms of the printed

handover letter and the sale deed has also been executed in

his favor.

Q. That it is pertinent to note that while under clause 1.2 (c)

of the buyer’s agreement, upon delay of payment by the

allottee, the respondent can charge 18% simple interest

per annum, however, on account of delay in handing over

possession by the respondent, he is liable to pay merely

Rs. 5.00/-per sq. ft. per month of the super area for the

period of delay as per clause 13(a) of the said agreement.

(Due to our resale case the BPTP REFUSE TO PAY THE DELAY

COMPENTION (as per clause No. 5.5 of BBA) Rs. 10 per sq. ft.

for 1st 6 month and Rs. 20 for next 6 months and Rs. 30

thereafter(the calculation is already submitted to Kuldeep Ji. It

is submitted that such clauses are totally unjust, arbitrary

and amounts to unfair trade practice as held by the Hon’ble

NCDRC in the case titled as Shri Satish Kumar Pandey &

Anr. v/s M.s Unitech Ltd. (14.07.2015) as also in the

 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Neelkamal Realtors

Suburban Pvt Ltd Vs. UOI and ors. (W.P 2737 of 2017).

R. As per Annexure – F enclosed with the possession letter, the

basis on which the amount has been arrived at is incorrect

and unilaterally taken by respondent. While calculating the

escalation cost, respondent has arrived at a figure of 20.38% &

Rs. 332.18 per square foot towards escalation percentage and

escalation per square feet respectively. The above calculations

are based on CPWD Cost Index for the following months, as

specified in the possession letter:

A. Base index as April 2010;

B. CL1 as October 2011;

C. CL2 as October 2012; and

D. CL3 as September 2017.

The respondent, while issuing the possession letter, has

cherry picked the aforesaid months, where ever, the CPWD

Cost Index was on a higher side so that the Respondent could

charge a higher amount to the complainant. The correct

CPWD Cost Index which should have been referenced as per

Builder Buyer Agreement Clause No. 20.12. (Page -24) should

have been as under:

A. CLSL = Cost index of CPWD on September 1, 2010 of

“Unit”

B. CL1 = Cost index of CPWD on September 1, 2011 of

“Unit”

C. CL2 = Cost index of CPWD on September 1, 2012 of

“Unit”

D. CL3 = Cost index of CPWD at the time of offer of

possession of “Unit”

In case, respondent had taken into consideration the

calculations as per the above correct CPWD index and Clause

20.12 of the Floor Buyers Agreement executed on May 18,

2012 (“Floor Buyers Agreement“), the escalation percentage

would have been reduced to 19.59% and the escalation per

square feet would have been reduced to Rs. 319.26/-. A

detailed calculation of these figures is annexed as Annexure

19.

While disagreeing with dates of the CPWD cost indexes taken

up by the Builder, the above comparison has been given based

on the cost Indexes between the Builders BBA and the Builder

Offer of Possession.

Factually the period of the CPWD cost indexes that should

have been taken is from the date of execution of the Builder

Buyer Agreement to the date of possession as offered in the

BBA. This has been decided in Madhu Sareen Versus M/s

BPTP Limited,Case No. RERA – PKL – COMP.113/2018

dated 16.07.2018.

Hence the calculations provided by the Builder in the Offer of

Possession will be unjustified for reasons as elaborated in the

above judgment as well as considering respondent has

collected substantial amount of payment i.e. Rs 95,81,849/-

(approx. 92 % of total sale consideration) in less than 19

months of booking the Unit i.e. by 15.05.2013.

It is submitted that such clauses are totally unjust, arbitrary

and amounts to unfair trade practice as held by the Hon’ble

HRERA Panchkula in the case titled as SmtMadhu Sareen &

Anr. v/s M.s BPTP Ltd. (31.08.2018) .

In addition to above there is a cost which has already been

taken into consideration as specified in Para 20.12 of the BBA

reading as under:

“The final cost of construction shall be calculated at the

stage of completion of project, should the variance be

equal or less than 5% of the cost of construction,

ascertained on September 1, 2010, the same shall be

absorbed entirely by the seller / conforming party.

 Hon’ble HRERA Panchkula in the case titled as SmtMadhu

Sareen & Anr. v/s M.s BPTP Ltd. (31.08.2018) has held as

under in Para IV Page 22:

“ .... Further this calculation will be made only in respect

of increase in the cost beyond initial 10% because ten

percent increase has already been accounted for in the

basic cost charged from the buyers”

Going by the above views expressed by the Honourable

Authority, an escalation content of 5% has been taken in the

BBA and hence should be deducted out of the total escalation.

Hence based on the above view the cost of esclation

caluclated as per attached Annexure, Annexure 19 is

only 3.76% instead of 20.38% which the respondent has

calculated by misrepresenting the facts to his benefit.

Please check the calculation form Rohit Sood petitions

S. GST, Service Tax & VAT

The Respondent in the Intimation of Possession dated

25.09.2017 has demanded (i) GST of Rs. 250,486.00 (ii)

Service Tax ( upto June 30, 2017) of Rs. 230197.00 &(iii) VAT

(upto March 31, 2014) of Rs. 79,935.65.

That the GST came into force in the year 2017, therefore, it is

a fresh tax. The possession of the apartment was supposed to

be delivered by 19.11.2015, therefore, the tax which has come

into existence after the deemed date of delivery should not be

levied being unjustified. There is no second thought to the

fact that the delivery of the apartment has been delayed by

more than 4 years. Had it been delivered by the due date or

even with some justified period of delay, the incidence of GST

would not have fallen upon the buyers. It is the wrongful act

on the part of the Respondent in not delivering the project in

time due to which the additional tax has become payable.

That the complainant is not at fault at all in this regard. For

the inordinate delay by the Respondent in delivering the

apartments, the incidence of GST should be borne by the

Respondent only.

That there is every possibility that the amount of GST which is

being demanded may not actually be loveable on the

apartments purchased by way of construction linked payment

plans.

HVAT

That one of the salient feature of amnesty scheme vide

notification dated 12.09.16 of Haryana Govt. dealing with VAT

on developers, is that in condition no. 4 it says that a

contractor/developer opting under this scheme shall pay year

wise, in lieu of tax, interest or penalty arising from his

business, by way of one time settlement, a lump sum amount

at the rate of one percent of the entire aggregate amount

received or receivable from business carried out during a year,

without deduction of any kind.

The other provision of the scheme says that no input tax credit

shall be allowed to the contractor under this scheme, on

purchase of goods used in the works contract.

It may be concluded with the text of this scheme that this is a

composition scheme in which department has allowed the

taxpayer to pay lump-sum tax @ 1% of total turnover instead

of going into the complications of taking input credits on

purchases and other deductions & then paying taxes as

applicable on goods transferred. It is very well known that

when a composition scheme is opted by a dealer /taxable

person, then no other input tax credits or deductions are

allowed to that person & moreover he cannot charge tax from

his customers.

These provisions were there under rule 49/49A of HVAT as

well as under the corresponding provision of GST also,

 wherever the Govt. has allowed composition tax to a dealer, it

debars it from charging that tax from its customers.

Thus to conclude, looking into the text of the amnesty scheme

and intent of the legislature, it can be argued that the

developer cannot charge the HVAT paid as per the said

amnesty from its customers as discussed above.”

1. As per Rule 49A(2) the composition developer is not eligible

to collect any amount by way of tax under the Act as well as
not eligible to issue taxes invoices. These restrictions are
self-explanatory and make it clear that the developer cannot
charge any amount as tax under the Act i.e. VAT from its
customers. The relevant rule and sub rules are produced
below:-

2. Rule 49A(2). The composition developer opting for

composition under this scheme shall,-

v. not collect any amount by way of tax under the Act;

vi. not issue “Tax Invoices”;….

Should we add that they have collected 75%+ payment in

2014.

T. That the Complainants contacted the respondents on several

occasions and were regularly in touch with the Respondent

but Respondents were never able to give any satisfactory

response to the complainant regarding the status of the

construction and were never definite about the delivery of the

 possession. The complainants kept pursuing the matter with

the representatives of the respondent as to when will they

deliver the project and why construction is going on at such a

slow pace, but to no avail. Some or the other reason was

being given in terms of delay in sanction of building plans,

some dispute with the land owners and shortage of labor etc.

etc.

U. The complainant lost hope of getting possession of flat and

also his hard earned money as neither the agents of the

respondent nor the company itself were responding about the

status or the date of the possession of the Flat/Apartment.

V. That the Respondents are guilty of deficiency in service within

the purview of provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016 (Central Act 16 of 2016) and the

provisions of Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Rules, 2017. The Complainants have suffered on

account of deficiency in service by the Respondent and as

such the Respondent is fully liable to cure the deficiency as

per the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016 (Central Act 16 of 2016) and the

provisions of Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Rules, 2017.

W.That the present Complaint sets out the various deficiencies in

services, unfair and/or restrictive trade practices adopted by

the Respondents in sale of their floors and the provisions

 allied to it. The modus operandi adopted by the Respondents,

from the Respondents point of view may be unique and

innovative but from the consumers point of view, the strategies

used to achieve its objective, invariably bears the irrefutable

stamp of impunity and total lack of accountability and

transparency, as well as breach of contract and duping of the

consumers, be it either through not implementing the

services/utilities as promised in the brochure or through not

delivering the project in time.

X. That the cause of action accrued in favor of the Complainant

and against the Respondent on the date when the

Respondents advertised the said project, it again arose on

diverse dates when the apartments owners entered into their

respective Agreement, it also arose when the Respondents

inordinately and unjustifiably and with no proper and

reasonable legal explanation or recourse delayed the project

beyond any reasonable measure continuing to this day, it

continues to arise as the apartment owners have not been

delivered the apartments and the infrastructure facilities in

the project have not been provided till date and the cause of

action is still continuing and subsisting on day to day basis.

Y. That as per section 18 of the RERA 2016, the Respondent is

liable to pay interest to the allottees of an apartment, building

or project for a delay or failure in handing over of such

possession as per the terms and agreement of the sale. The

relevant portion of Section 18 is reproduced hereunder:

18. Return of amount and compensation: -

(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give

possession of an apartment, plot or building, —

(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for

sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date

specified therein; or

(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer

on account of suspension or revocation of the

registration under this Act or for any other reason,

he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the

allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without

prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the

amount received by him in respect of that apartment,

plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such

rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including

compensation in the manner as provided under this Act:

Provided that where an allottee does not intend to

withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the

promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the

handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be

prescribed.
Accordingly, the complainant(s) are entitled to get interest on

the paid amount along with interest at the rate as prescribed

by the Hon’ble Authority per annum from due date of

possession as per flat buyer agreement till the date of handing

over of possession.

TERRITORIAL AND PECUNIARY JURISDICTION:

It is stated that the Project of the Respondent is registered

with the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, hence the

said Complaint is amenable to the territorial jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble Authority. The delay compensation for the

consideration paid by the Complainant, for the unlawful loss

and mental agony, falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of

this forum.

As per notification no. 1 / 92 / 2017 -1TCP dated 14.1.2.2017

issued by the Department of Town & Country Planning, the

jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram

shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices

situated in Gurugram. In the present case, the project in

question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram

District, therefore this authority has complete territorial

jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint. This has also

been held inSimmiSikka V/S EMAAR MGF Ltd.

 LIMITATION: It is stated that the present complaint is within

the prescribed period of limitation.

Complainants

THROUGH

KOHLI & KOHLILAW ASSOCIATES

COUNSEL(S) FOR THE COMPLAINANT
V 3/11, DLF PHASE III, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA

ADVOCATE KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

D/383/79
+91-8860332404
forkuldeepkohli@gmail.com

ADVOCATE KREETI CHHABRA

PH/6584/2019
+919896613598
kreeti.chhabra.kc@gmail.com

PLACE: GURUGRAM, HARYANA

DATE: ___.04.2020
 BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

COMPLAINT CASE No: RERA-GRG-XXX-2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. AKHILESH PRIYANKESH SHARMA AND ORS.

…COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

BPTP LTD.
…RESPONDENT

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

1. Whether the respondent adopted unfair, unreasonable&illegal

trade practices, from the date of booking of unit No. beingB-

54-GF.
 2. Whether the builder violated the Builder Buyers Agreement

and demanded money as per the Construction Linked Plan as

attached to the Builder Buyer Agreement despite the fact that

the construction was not going on as per the schedule plan.

3. Whether the respondent can charge Cost escalation on

account of increase in raw material cost which the respondent

has calculated by misrepresenting the facts and basis of such

calculation to his benefit and while respondent has delayed

the project under various excuses for about 24 months from

the date of handover as per Builder buyer agreement

though the payment of Rs 95,81,849/- (approx. 92 % of

total sale consideration) was made by complainants in less

than 19 months of booking the Unit i.e. by 15.05.2013.

4. Whether the builder is justified in collecting payment of Rs

200,000/- in August 2012 on account of Club Membership

charges while the club has still not been constructed on this

date.

As the document shared with you kindly add these point in petition

1. Basement charges – IT WILL GO IN HRERA is not added

And
Poor quality of construction – THIS WILL GO TO HRERA

Non Financial
1. Security concerns
2. Connectivity of the society
3. Insufficiency of services –
4. Non delivery as against promised project - Club, playground, fire safety, common facilities for
guards, shuttle service, golf carts, swimming pool, GYM, daily need shop, Milk booth, ATM,
School etc.

5. Whether the builder can charge GST and VAT of an amount of

Rs 272,292.00/- and Rs 97,174.88/- respectively while these

are fresh tax liability for complainant due to delay in

possession of unit by respondent with no default of

complainants.

6. Whether the builder is justified in perpetrating all possible

tantrums, making false advertisement and promises, extract

almost full amount as advance money through illegal

demands without doing any actual development work, causing

excessive delay in possession and adopted illegal unfair,

unreasonable and arbitrary clauses in agreement.

7. That the respondent company under the guise of being a

reputed builder and developer has systematic, organized tools

and techniques to cheat and commit fraud with the innocent

and gullible public at large and its modus operandi is to

 advertise its projects, making attractive promises such as full

of facility like club, Roads Drinking water etc, Initially the

scheme offered by the respondent seems to be very attractive

but in reality the situation on the ground is far from the

claims made in the advertisement, No basic infrastructure

have been developed till date and the complainant is deprived

of his unit till date after lapse of considerable time Which is

clear contravention of Section 11(4)(a), r/w S.4(2)(1)C), S.4(2)

(l) A, B, S.12 and S.19(4).

8. Whether the respondent has delayed the possession but

demanded money with interest without commensurate

construction on the ground till date, which has been

questioned by the complainant, and is in contravention of

Sections 11, 12, 18(3) and 19(4).

9. Whether the Allottee is entitled to claim the interest under

Section 18(1) r/w S.11(4)(a), S 12 and S. 19(4).

10. Whether the date of possession will be the date of

intimation of possession or the actual date of delivery, if the

intimation of possession is anambiguous offer of possession

and carries certain conditions which are not as per the BBA

and is accompanied with an Indemnity cum Undertaking

Bond.
 11. Whether the time period taken for deciding the matter by

this Honorable Authority is to be included for giving the

interest as the possession cannot be taken by the complainant

unless an order has been passed by this Honorable Authority

in the matter.

12. That Whether the Respondent be justified in charging

the Holding charges if there is a delay in taking the possession

after the intimation of possession because of the intimation of

possession being an ambiguous offer of possession and

carries certain conditions which are not as per the BBA and is

accompanied with an Indemnity cum Undertaking Bond.

Complainants

THROUGH

KOHLI & KOHLI LAW ASSOCIATES

COUNSEL(S) FOR THE COMPLAINANT
V 3/11, DLF PHASE III, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA

ADVOCATE KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

D/383/79
+91-8860332404
forkuldeepkohli@gmail.com

ADVOCATE KREETI CHHABRA

PH/6584/2019
+919896613598
kreeti.chhabra.kc@gmail.com

PLACE: GURUGRAM, HARYANA

DATE:___.04.2020
BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

COMPLAINT CASE No: RERA-GRG-___-2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. AKHILESH PRIYANKESH SHARMAAND ORS.

 …COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

BPTP LTD.
…RESPONDENT

RELIEF SOUGHT:

INTERIM RELIEF AS PRAYED:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to ensure compliance and issue directions to the

Respondents in this regard, till the pendency of present

Complaint. The Complainants seeks issuance of the following

interim relief:

i. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent to pay the entire amount of

interest due to the complainant with effect from the

committeddateof possession as per the Buyer’s Agreement to

the actual delivery of possession, at the simple rate of interest

as per the guidelines laid in RERA, 2016.

ii. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent to adjust the interest out of

the additional amount, if any payable by the complainant to

the Respondent.

iii. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent to ensure no further demand

is raised on the complainant till the time the entire interest

due to the complainant has been adjusted against additional

demand, if any payable by the complainant to the

Respondent.

iv. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent to pay the balance amount

due to the complainant from the Respondent on account of the

interest, as per the guidelines laid in the RERA, 2016, at the

time of offering the possession, before signing the sale deed

together with the unambiguous intimation / offer of

possession.

v. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent not to ask for anythingwhich

has not been agreed to between the parties in the Builder

Buyer Agreementas offering possession on the payment of

charges which the flat buyer is not contractually bound to pay,

cannot be considered to be a valid offer of possession.

vi. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to pass any other interim relief(s) which this Hon’ble

Authority thinks fit in the interest of justice and in favor of the

Complainants.

MAIN RELIEF AS PRAYED:

In light of the present facts and circumstances and in the

Interest of Justice, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble

Forum may graciously be pleased to:

i. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent not to force the

complainant to sign any Indemnity cum undertaking

indemnifying the builder from anything legal as a

precondition for signing the conveyance deed as the obvious

purpose behind such an undertaking is to deter the allottee

from making any claim against the developer, including the

claim on account of the delay in delivery of possession and

 the claim on account of any latent defect which the allottee

may find in the apartment.

ii. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent to kindly handover the

entire possession of the unit of the complainant free from

any defect or deficiency, in all respects and also complete all

the pending work including but not limited to proper road,

electrification of the roads, functioning of the club, STP unit

etc. and other things which were assured in the brochure, as

the complainant had booked a unit in a complex based on

the brochure and not a stand-alone flat.

iii. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to pass any other interim relief(s) which this Hon’ble

Authority thinks fit in the interest of justice and in favor of

the Complainants.

iv. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent to kindly handover the

entire possession of the unit of the complainant, once it is

ready, in all respects and not to force an incomplete unit

without proper road, electrification of the roads, functioning

of the club etc. and other things which were assured in the
 brochure, as the complainant had booked a unit in a

complex based on the brochure and not a stand-alone flat.

v. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent not to force the

complainant to sign any Indemnity cum undertaking

indemnifying the builder from anything legal as a

precondition for signing the conveyance deed or forcing the

complainant through the undertaking to abide by the illegal

terms and conditions of the buyers Agreement like payment

of compensation as laid in the buyers Agreement which is

not in consonance with the guidelines laid in Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act,2016 and the rules

framed thereunder.

vi. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to order the Respondent not to ask for any charges

which is not as per the Builder Buyer Agreement.

vii. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority be

pleased to pass any other interim relief(s) which this

Hon’ble Authority thinks fit in the interest of justice and in

favor of the Complainants.

Complainants
 THROUGH

KOHLI & KOHLILAW ASSOCIATES

COUNSEL(S) FOR THE COMPLAINANT
V 3/11, DLF PHASE III, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA

ADVOCATE KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

D/383/79
+91-8860332404
forkuldeepkohli@gmail.com

ADVOCATE KREETI CHHABRA

PH/6584/2019
+919896613598
kreeti.chhabra.kc@gmail.com

PLACE: GURUGRAM, HARYANA

DATE:___.04.2020

AFFIDAVIT

BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY

AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

COMPLAINT NO.RERA-GRG-___-2020

MR. AKHILESH SHARMA AND ORS.

…COMPLAINANTS

Versus
BPTP LTD.
...RESPONDENT
IN THE MATTER OF:
I,Mr. Akhilesh PRIYANKESH SHARMAS/o SH OM PRIYANKESH
NARAYANSHARMA R/oB-21, Vaastu Apartment, Sector-
1355,Gurgaon, India,do hereby solemnly affirms and declare as
under: -

1. That I am the Complainant in the above mentioned complaint

and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
case hence competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That no similar Complaint is pending before any authority,
court of law, consumer commission or any other tribunal.
3. That a self-attested copy of Aadhar card of the
Complainant/Deponent is also annexed herewith.
4. That the annexure produced along with the complaint are true
and correct to their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
I the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the
contents of theabove affidavit are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief, nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
Verified at Gurugram on this ___ day of April, 2020.

DEPONENT

AFFIDAVIT

BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY

AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

COMPLAINT NO.RERA-GRG-___- 2020

MR. AKHILESH SHARMA AND ORS.

…COMPLAINANTS

Versus
BPTP LTD.

…RESPONDENT
I,Mr. PriyankeshSharmaS/o SH OM PRIYANKESH SHARMA R/o
B-21, Vaastu Apartment, Sector-5513,Gurgaon, Haryana
122003Gurgaon,Delhi -110085, India, do hereby solemnly affirms
and declare as under: -

1. That I am the Complainant in the above mentioned complaint

and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
case hence competent to swear the present affidavit.
2. That no similar Complaint is pending before any authority,
court of law, consumer commission or any other tribunal.
3. That a self-attested copy of Aadhar card of the
Complainant/Deponent is also annexed herewith.
4. That the annexure produced along with the complaint are true
and correct to their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
I the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the
contents of theabove affidavit are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief, nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
Verified at Gurugram on this___ day of April, 2020.

DEPONENT

BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY

AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

COMPLAINT NO.RERA-GRG-___-2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. AKHILESH SHARMA AND ORS.

…COMPLAINANTS

Versus
BPTP LTD.
…RESPONDENT
KNOW ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME THAT Mr. Akhilesh
SharmaS/o SH OM PRIYANKESH SHARMAR/o B-21, Vaastu
Apartment, Sector-1355,Gurgaon, Haryana 122003Gurgaon,Delhi
-110085, India, DO HEREBY APPOINT THE FOLLOWING:

KOHLI & KOHLI LAW ASSOCIATES

ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS,
V – 3/11, DLF – PHSE – III,
GURUGRAM, HARYANA
PHONE – 0124-2355777

ADVOCATE KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

(D/383/79)
8860332404
KULDEEP.KOHLI55@GMAIL.COM
FORKULDEEPKOHLI@HOTMAIL.COM

ADVOCATE KREETI CHHABRA

PH/6584/2019
+919896613598
kreeti.chhabra.kc@gmail.com

Hereinafter called Advocate to be our Advocates in the above noted case

and authorize them

To act appear and plead in the above-noted case in the Court or in any other
Court in which the same may be tried or heard and also in the appellate Courts
including High Court.

To sign, verify and present pleading, reapplications, appeals cross- objections

or petitions for executions, review, revision, restoration.  Withdraw compromise
or other petitions replies objections or affidavits or other documents as may be
deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case all its stages.
To file and take back documents
To withdraw, or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any
differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to
the said case
To take out execution proceedings
To deposit, draw and receive money, cheques and grant receipts therefore and
to do all other, acts and things which may be necessary be done for the
progress and in the course of prosecution of the said case.
To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorizing him to
exercise the power and authorized hereby confirmed upon the Advocate
whenever he may think fit to do so & to sign the power of attorney on our
behalf.
And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm acts done by
the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/our own acts as if done by
me/us to all intents and purpose.
And I/We undertake that I/we or my/our duly authorized agent would appear
in Court on all hearing & will inform the Advocate for appearance when the
case is called.
And I/We undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the Advocate or his
substitute responsible for the result of the said case in consequence of his
absence from the Court when the said case is called upon for hearing or for
any negligence of the said Advocate or his substitute.
And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the any part of
the fee agreed by me/us to be paid to the Advocate remaining unpaid he shall
be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the same is
paid up if any costs are allowed for on adjournment the Advocate would be
entitled to the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/WE do herein to set my/our hand to these present
the contents of which have been stood by me/us this  day of ___/04/2020

Accepted Accepted Client

Advocate Advocate