MANOHARLAL L NARANG Vs. AMITA CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite Party No.1 Amita Corporation, who claimed to be expert, experienced and successful builders, put up a scheme of construction of residential flats named as "shodhannagar", opposite Saijpur Bogha Railway Station near Hamamdas Park Society, in the Kubernagar area of the city of Ahmedabad. A public notice was got inserted in daily newspaper Gujarat Samachar of the issue dated December 20, 1981 which clearly represented that the construction was going on with full speed and the scheme consisted of 65 sq. yards of build up work, having one drawing room, a bed room, a kitchen, with lavatory, bath-room, with three open balcony. These flats were described as modern Hats. The public advertisement has been produced on record along with the list of documents by the complainants. This public advertisement has not been denied by Opposite Party No.1 Amita Corporation, a partnership who is a promoter and organiser of the said scheme.

(2.) The complainants have also produced a letter written by the Amita Corporation to the General Manager of New Swadeshi Mills, Ahmedabad, informing him that the Shodhannagar Scheme is very attractive and the land admeasuring 42,000 square yards near Saijpur Bogha Railway Station, was being developed by them in two phases; that the Scheme under Phase No.1 has been commenced and is to be over by the end of 1983; and that this letter was written in order to give priority to the persons and institutions intending to join the Scheme in group. The letter further states that Opposite Party (Amita Corporation) has already procured NOC from Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and after obtaining Non-Agricultural user permission from AUDA (Ahmedabad Urban Develop- ment Authority), the construction work has commenced. The complainants have also attached the building plan in Shodhannagar Scheme No.1. The value of each flat is shown at Rs.36,505/- in which the members has to invest initially Rs.13,505/- and the balance amount was to be met with from the proposed loan. At the time of enrolment as member, one had to pay only Rs.3,500/- and the balance amount was payable by 15th October, 1983.

(3.) This complaint was received by the Commission on December 7, 1990. In pursuance of the Notice issued by the Commission, Amita Corporation, who was the only opposite party being promoter and organiser in the originally filed complaint, appeared and filed its written statement. The opposite party in its reply has admitted about its status of a partnership firm and about they having advertised the Scheme of Shodhannagar in the newspaper. According to this Corporation, they had there after formed a co-operative society; that they have utilized the members' money as well as the Bank loan. It is then contended by this opposite party that since they could not get the remaining amount from Gujarat Housing Financial Corporation, they had to stop the work of further construction and that thereafter they have transferred the obligation of the whole Shodhannagar Scheme to Mahalaxmi Construction Company by and under an Agreement of November 1985 and by virtue of the said Agreement, it is Mahalaxmi Construction Company only, which is responsible and answerable to the complainants. In short, Opposite Party No.1 Amita Corporation which is admittedly an organizer developer and the party who has collected full amounts from the members as shown in the Schedule (members contribution) is trying to get out from the obligation merely on the alleged ground that the partnership firm has transferred that obligation of completing the Scheme to Mahalaxmi Construction Company, by aforesaid agreement to which complain- ants are not parties.