SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 32216

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/S ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M/S HIGHLAND PARK HOMES – Respondent
SC/4/A/367/2024



Petitioner Advocates:RAJEEV ANAND,RAJEEV ANAND ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/A/367/2024 M/S ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED PRESENT ADDRESS - 10TH FLOOR, THE RUBY, 29, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR WEST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA ,CHANDIGARH.

M/S INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED NOW KNOWN AS SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED PRESENT ADDRESS - SCO NO. 347-348, GROUND FLOOR, SECTOR 35-B, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus M/S HIGHLAND PARK HOMES PRESENT ADDRESS - SCO NO. 393, 2ND FLOOR, SECTOR 8, PANCHKULA,CHANDIGARH.

ABHINASH SRIVASTAVA PRESENT ADDRESS - 3376 SECTOR 47 D,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

M/S ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED DATED: 11/11/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.

CHANDIGARH ============

Appeal No : A/367/2024 Date of Institution : 04/11/2024 Date of Decision : 11/11/2025

1] M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, 10th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapart Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

2] M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, now known as M/s Sammaan Capital Limited, SCO No.347-348, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160035, through its Authorized Representative.

….. Appellants Versus

1] M/s Highland Park Homes, through its CEO/Managing Director/Auth.Signatory/

Authorized Representative, Registered Office at SCO No.393, 2ndFloor, Sector 8, Panchkula -160009 Alternate Address:-

M/s Highland Park Homes, Site Office at Zirakpur Patiala Highway, Highland Marg, Zirakpur 140603 Mohali.

2] Abhinash Srivastava S/o Sh.Pratap Narain Srivastava, resident of # 3376, Sector 47-

D, Chandigarh, employed at Punjab National Bank, Kishangarh, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

….. Respondents BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT RAJESH K. ARYA MEMBER PRESENT : Sh. Vansh Vohra, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the Appellants Sh. Simranjit Singh Sidhu, Adv. for the Respondent No.1 (on V.C)

None for the Respondent No.2 PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

1. The Appellants have moved MA/987/2024 for condoning the delay of 180 days in filing the Appeal. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to be within time. Accordingly, MA/987/2024 stands disposed of.

2. The Appellants have moved MA/988/2024 for placing on record necessary documents as Annexure A-9. In view of reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the documents aforesaid are taken on record. MA/988/2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 413 of 2021, whereby the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 (complainant) was allowed directing Opposite Party No. 1 – M/s Highland Park Homes – to refund a sum of 16,84,000/- with interest @10% p.a. from 29.01.2018 till realization, along with 50,000/- as compensation and 15,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. While the complaint against Opposite Party No. 2 – Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (now succeeded by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., who took over the loan asset from Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., the substituted company) was dismissed, the District Commission failed to deal with the crucial issue of apportionment of refund, despite the undisputed fact that 14,13,000/- out of the total 16,84,000/- had been disbursed directly by the financial institution (Appellant No. 2) to the builder (Respondent No. 1) on behalf of the complainant/borrower.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had booked a 2 BHK unit with Respondent No. 1 – Builder in its project Highland Park at Zirakpur for a total sale consideration of 27,10,000/-. An Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 02.04.2017 was executed, fixing the possession date as 30.11.2017

6. The complainant availed a home loan of 22,00,000/- from Appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top