CHARAN HOMES PVT. LTD Vs. JAI PRAKASH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants which were Opposite Parties before the State Commission have filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.08.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint No. 576/2006 wherein the State Commission allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent has directed the Appellants to allot a two bed room flat in the First Floor of the Multi Storeyed Building constructed by them in the land bearing Corporation No.21 corresponding to new No.19, Melvelle House Grounds, Palace Cross Road, Bangalore-560 020 bounded on the "East by K.T. Apartments, West by Plot No.2 of Sri N. Govind, North by Palace Cross Road, South by Madras Bangalore Railway Line' as described in the Agreement dated 24.01.04 within a period of 60 days from the date of the Complainant paying the balance amount, if any. Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs.

(2.) Appellants, on being served, entered appearance and filed their written statement resisting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds; that the agreement relied upon by the Respondent was a sham and colourable document entered into just to wriggle out of the hurdles created by the Respondent to stall execution of the project and to cause hardship to the Appellants; that the Respondent should be relegated to the Civil Court for seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale.

(3.) At the time of admission of Appeal on 23.10.07, Shri Uday U. Lalit, Senior Advocate for the Appellants after taking instructions from the Appellants made a statement that no two bed room flat is available for sale in the multi-storeyed building in question. In view of the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants, the Appeal was admitted. Operation of the order passed by the State Commission was stayed subject to deposit of Rs.50 lakh by the Appellants with this Commission within a period of four weeks of passing of the order. The amount on deposit was ordered to be invested in short term deposits. Appellants preferred a SLP against the said conditional order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed and time was extended for deposit of the amount.