Case: ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER WELFARE AND AID Vs. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

4. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 7 January 2019.A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent which was ordered to be deleted by the NCDRC from the array of parties.5. The consumer complaint filed by the appellant, which is an association representing the buyers, seeks diverse reliefs including the grant of possession of flats to the allottees of the real estate project together with common amenities and restraining the respondents from charging additional amounts for alleged increases in the area of the flats otherwise than in accordance with the allotment letters. The averments in paragraphs 5 and 13 of the complaint before the NCDRC read asThat the Allotment Letters clearly provide that the projects are being undertaken by Opposite Part 2 (which is formed by Opposite Party 1 specifically for the purpose of construction of Lotus Panache). The entire consideration amount for the project was required to be paid to Opposite Party 2 by the allottees, although the project was marketed by Opposite Party 1 and the parties marketed themselves aswhich is also evident from the letterhead of the Company on which the Allotment Letters were printed.The Companies registered project Lotus Panache under Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority and M/s Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. was declared by the Companies as the Promoter of the project. However clearly as per the agreement, Three C Universal Developers Private Limited was the main company as it has formed the SPC (which was formed specifically for development of the project Lotus Panache and was the one which was marketing and executing the agreements), therefore having been vested the primary responsibility of the entire project together with all the other opposite parties who also are jointly and severally responsible for all thef obligations contained herein. Further, the details of Project Lotus Panache as obtained from the website of Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulation Authority clearly shows the proposed date of completion of the project as 31.12.2022. Surprisingly, the original start date has been specified as 11.5.2010 and the modified start date for the project has been specified as 10.8.2017.In sum and substance therefore, the case of the appellants before the NCDRC is that the second respondent, Three C Universal Developers Private Limited, is in fact the main promoter of the project and that it is vested with the primary responsibility of completing the project. Para 17.1 of the complaint reads asThe Opposite Parties state that the Allottees had entered into Agreements with only Opposite Party 2 and no one else. However, clearly Opposite Party 1 and Opposite Party 2 have been acting as one and the same Company. Opposite Party 1 has admittedly marketed the Project and the Companies have represented themselves together asThe allotment letter names Opposite Party 1 as one of the Parties and the Builder Buyer Agreement specifically recognises that Opposite Party 2 is only a Special Purpose Company formed by the Opposite Party 1 for a particular purpose.In the complaint before the NCDRC, Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. (the second respondent to the present appeal) is arrayed as opposite party No. 1, while Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. (the first respondent to the present appeal) is opposite party No. 2.8. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings, the second respondent has stated that the first respondent was set up as a special purpose vehicle by a consortium of which the second respondent is a part. Moreover, it has been stated that a construction agreement was entered into between the first and second respondents on 15 December 2009.

Court's reasoning:
11. On the basis of the material which is on record, it is not possible for the Court to conclude at the present stage that the second respondent is unconnected with the project or has been impleaded as a party to the proceeding without any reason or basis. The issue as to whether, and if so, what relief can be ultimately granted in the consumer complaint is a matter which will be determined during the course of the hearing of the complaint.12. Consequently, we are of the view that on the basis of the averments contained in the complaint as well as on the material which has been placed on the record by the second respondent, an order for deletion was not warranted at this stage.