M/S. MAYTAS PROPERTIES LTD. vs KALIDINDI JHANSI LAKSHMI & ANR.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 434

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 18/05/2013 in Complaint No. 73/2010 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. M/S. MAYTAS PROPERTIES LTD.
REP. BY ITS AUTHROSED SIGNATORY, HILL COUNTY, BACHUPALLY, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD-500072 A.P ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. KALIDINDI JHANSI LAKSHMI & ANR.
W/O. K.K. RAJU, FLAT NO. 301, MY HOME GARDENIA APARTMENTS, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD-01
2. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD A.P. ...........Respondent(s)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 18/05/2013 in Complaint No. 79/2010 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. M/S. MAYTAS PROPERTIES LTD.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, HILL COUNTY, BACHUPALLY, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD-500072 ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. NARAVATI TAJA SEKHAR & ANR.
S/O. CHANDRA MOHAN NARAVATI, FLAT NO. 405, PLOT NO. 26/28 & 30, PADMAREKHA APARTMENTS, RAJEEVNAGAR, HYDERABAD-18 A.P
2. DEUTSCHE POST BANK HOME FINANCE LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, 6-1-73, SAEED PLAZA, LAKDIKAPUL, BESIDE CENTRAL COURT HOTEL, HYDEABAD A.P. ...........Respondent(s)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 527 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 18/05/2013 in Complaint No. 64/2012 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. M/S. MAYTAS PROPERTIES LTD.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, HILL COUNTY, BACHUPALLY, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD-500072 A.P ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. RAVI KANTH VEDA & 7 ORS.
S/O. RAJENDRA KUMAR, PLOT NO. 14/1F, BHEL ENCLAVE, AKBAR ROAD, SECUNDERABAD A.P
2. SRIVANI VEDA W/O. RAVIKANTH VEDA, PLOT NO. 14/1F, BHEL ENCLAVE, AKBAR ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-09 A.P
3. M.TEJA PRATAP RAJU S/O. HARI PRASAD RAJU, HILL COUNTY, BACHUPALLY, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD-500072 A.P
4. ARUN KUMAR SAHA S/O. BRINDAVAN CHANDRA SAHA, 601-602, GREEN ACRES, CHS, PALI HILL, BANDRA (W)
MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA
5. VIMAL KISHORE KAUSHIK S/O. SADANAND SHASTRY, S-27/1-D, DLF UTUB ENCLAVE, GURGAON HRYANA
6. RAMESH CHANDRA BAWA W-78, GREATER KAILASH, PART-1, NEW DELHI
7. RAMACHANDRA KARUNAKARAN, 3RD FLOOR, VICTORIA BUILDING, E-23, GAJDHAR SCHEME, SD ROAD, SANTA CRUZ, MUMBAI-400054 MAHARASHTRA
8. BRANCH MANAGER, AXIS BANK LTD., P.M. MODI COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, 5-4-187/6, M.G. ROAD, KARBALA COMPOUND, SECUNDERABAD ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Advocate for Respondent/Caveator in FA/527/2013 Dated : 07 Aug 2013

ORDER

First Appeals No. 525 of 2013, 526 of 2013 and 527 of 2013 have been filed by M/s Maytas Properties Ltd. against the order 08.05.2013 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission). It may be recalled that we have already passed a detailed order dated

08.07.2013 in First Appeal No. 327 of 2012 (M/s Maytas Properties Ltd. Vs. Bharati Khurana & Anr.) and other connected matters, wherein the Appellant as also the cause of action were similar to present First Appeals.

Mr. Raghenth Basant, Counsel for the Appellant in these appeals, however, states that after the passing of the above order dated 08.07.2013, the Company Law Board has further extended the time limit to ILFS (which has stepped into the shoes of M/s Maytas Properties Ltd.) for completing the construction from June, 2013 to September, 2013 and, therefore, requests that the case be heard de novo.

We are not in agreement with this contention in view of our order dated 08.07.2013, which is a binding precedent and which had been passed after hearing all parties at length, including Senior Advocate Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the Appellant and who had inter alia fairly conceded that the Company Law Board proceedings to not bind this Commission in any manner. We had also noted the status of construction work in the Maytas (ILFS) projects and concluded that a substantial part of the work is still ongoing and the apartments are far from habitable and, therefore, it is not possible for the flats to be ready for occupation in the near future.

In view of the above facts, there are no grounds to hear any of these cases de novo since the point in issue in these appeals stands fully concluded by our order dated 08.07.2013. These appeals are, therefore, disposed of in terms of our above order.

...................... VINEETA RAI PRESIDING MEMBER ......................

VINAY KUMAR MEMBER

Click Here to Read the rest of this document