28 Feb 2020·Final order·Appeared·Verified

Surender Singh v. Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd

Complaint No. 2201931420 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant

Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint cases (complaint no. / complainants / unit / amount): - Itara45/07470/209 [?] / Sanjeev Sharma and Jeevan Lata Sharma / unit [?] / Rs. 9,8,84/- - Itara45/0/0540/209 [?] / Manish Ku

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Dilip Sinha v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/10/0180/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Satyanarain Rao Jayanti v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/08/1441/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Sangita Jain v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/08/0509/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Kailash Sharma v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/06/0261/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Shekhar Chand v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/06/0258/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Brajesh Kumar Tripathi and Anita Devi v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 2201931573 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

6 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Rajan Sadana v. Sikka Infrastructure Pvt Ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/10/0068/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The present complaint application has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking possession and interest for the delayed period. In brief, the complainant states that they booked Unit No. 504 in the opposite party's project Sikka Karnam Greens, for which they paid Rs.4,42,439/- from time to time i

6 Dec 2019·Final order·Verified

Sanjeev Mangotra v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/10/0175/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

work being hindered by decisions and [?], and delay in licences and recommendations etc. However, the opposite party has neither stated which particular f

28 Nov 2019·Final order·Verified

Abhiraj Singh Rathore v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/07/0675/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The complainants have instituted this complaint against the opposite party seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest. In brief, the complainant states that the complainant booked flat No. 806 in Tower-[?] of the opposite party's project Blossom County, Phase-4, against which the complainant paid Rs. 26,64,24

21 Oct 2019·Final order·Verified

Surbhi Agarwal v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/08/0517/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The present application has been filed by the complainants against the respondent seeking possession and interest for the delayed period, and seeking that their demands be corrected. In brief, the complainant states that the complainant booked flat Ao0-907 in Tower-8 of the respondent's project Blossom County, Phase-4,

21 Oct 2019·Final order·Verified

Rajesh Mohan v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/07/0441/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The complainants have instituted this complaint against the opposite party seeking possession and interest for the delayed period, and to end unnecessary demands in the offer of possession. In some cases, compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses has also been sought. In brief, the complainant states that t

21 Oct 2019·Final order·Verified

Mrs Surbhi Anand and Mr Nikhil Agarwal v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/06/1212/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The present application has been filed by the complainants against the respondent seeking possession and interest for the delayed period, and seeking that their demands be corrected. In brief, the complainant states that the complainant booked flat Ao0-907 in Tower-8 of the respondent's project Blossom County, Phase-4,

25 Sep 2019·Final order·Verified

Ishan Gupta v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 2201931967 · for the respondent

was affirmed by this Court in 20l5 in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. (205) 7 SCC 2l. There was no interim stay granted by the High Court on construction work, is made clear by the Noida and Greater Noida authorities. There was no room to entertain any doubt as to the fact whether for a particular village the acquisition

20 Sep 2019·Final order·Appeared·Verified

Shivani Shukal v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. ADJ/NCR144/07/0816/2019 · for the respondent

17 Sep 2019·Final order·Verified

S Swaminathan v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/07/0268/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

In support of its statement, the opposite party has filed a photocopy of the project details. Heard both parties and perused the case file. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 4. Whether agreements made before RERA came into force do not fall within the ambit of RERA? 2. Whet

13 Aug 2019·Final order·Verified

Abhishek Gera v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144030376/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

Office of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Hearing Bench 04A Shri Rajeev Kumar, Chairman Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainants 1 | NCR44030376/2049 | Abhishek Gera 2 | [?]44/05/370/20:9 | Ramnik Singh Makkar 3 | [?]744/05/0968/209 | Anand Kumar 4 | [?]44/06/0090/2049 | Na

27 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Apurv Sharma v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 12201827792 · Bench 2 Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

Complaint No. 42204827792, Apoorva Sharma, will be the lead case. The complaint application submitted by the complainants against the opposite party requests that EMI and penalty, legal fees and travel expenses be awarded. Briefly, the complainants state that the complainant booked Flat No. T-24 in the opposite party's

27 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Satyapal Singh v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 12201826697 · for the respondent

27 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Santosh Prasad v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 12201826696 · for the respondent

19 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Ved Prakash S/o Shri Ramji Lal v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 12201827211 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

In its second reply, the opposite party raised the point that the Authority has no power to decide any matter under Sections 42, 4, 8 and 49 of RERA, and that this falls within the work of the adjudicating officer. It stated that the State Government has not fixed any interest rate, and that the interest rate fixed und

4 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Prashant Jagwani v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. 2201931471 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Hearing Bench-04A Shri Rajeev Kumar, Chairman Complaint No.: 220937474 Prashant Jagwani versus M/s Logix Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the Complainant against the Respondent, seeking

11 Jun 2019·Final order·Appeared·Verified

Pradeep Chandra Pandey & Smt Prabha Pandey v. G S Promoters Private Limited

Complaint No. 320188151 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

On the complainant's complaint, the Bench passed the following orders on 02.04.2049: 4. The opposite party is directed to ensure that it gives the complainant possession, along with OC/CC, within 45 days of the order being uploaded, and that it obtains registration after paying stamp duty as per the rules. The opposite

28 Feb 2020·Final order·Appeared·Verified

Surender Singh v. Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd

Complaint No. 2201931420 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant

Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint cases (complaint no. / complainants / unit / amount): - Itara45/07470/209 [?] / Sanjeev Sharma and Jeevan Lata Sharma / unit [?] / Rs. 9,8,84/- - Itara45/0/0540/209 [?] / Manish Ku

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Dilip Sinha v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/10/0180/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Satyanarain Rao Jayanti v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/08/1441/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Sangita Jain v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/08/0509/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Kailash Sharma v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/06/0261/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Shekhar Chand v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. NCR144/06/0258/2019 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

7 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Brajesh Kumar Tripathi and Anita Devi v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 2201931573 · for the respondent

from past ! months due to restriction on its QO | the company a= | has adversely affected and it has brought the company in a distressed situation, due to this reason the company's cash flow is also. effected. Compounded with this sluggish business environment has further impacted the company/project still the company

6 Feb 2020·Final order·Verified

Rajan Sadana v. Sikka Infrastructure Pvt Ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/10/0068/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The present complaint application has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking possession and interest for the delayed period. In brief, the complainant states that they booked Unit No. 504 in the opposite party's project Sikka Karnam Greens, for which they paid Rs.4,42,439/- from time to time i

6 Dec 2019·Final order·Verified

Sanjeev Mangotra v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/10/0175/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

work being hindered by decisions and [?], and delay in licences and recommendations etc. However, the opposite party has neither stated which particular f

28 Nov 2019·Final order·Verified

Abhiraj Singh Rathore v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/07/0675/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The complainants have instituted this complaint against the opposite party seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest. In brief, the complainant states that the complainant booked flat No. 806 in Tower-[?] of the opposite party's project Blossom County, Phase-4, against which the complainant paid Rs. 26,64,24

21 Oct 2019·Final order·Verified

Surbhi Agarwal v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/08/0517/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The present application has been filed by the complainants against the respondent seeking possession and interest for the delayed period, and seeking that their demands be corrected. In brief, the complainant states that the complainant booked flat Ao0-907 in Tower-8 of the respondent's project Blossom County, Phase-4,

21 Oct 2019·Final order·Verified

Rajesh Mohan v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/07/0441/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The complainants have instituted this complaint against the opposite party seeking possession and interest for the delayed period, and to end unnecessary demands in the offer of possession. In some cases, compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses has also been sought. In brief, the complainant states that t

21 Oct 2019·Final order·Verified

Mrs Surbhi Anand and Mr Nikhil Agarwal v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/06/1212/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

The present application has been filed by the complainants against the respondent seeking possession and interest for the delayed period, and seeking that their demands be corrected. In brief, the complainant states that the complainant booked flat Ao0-907 in Tower-8 of the respondent's project Blossom County, Phase-4,

25 Sep 2019·Final order·Verified

Ishan Gupta v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 2201931967 · for the respondent

was affirmed by this Court in 20l5 in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. (205) 7 SCC 2l. There was no interim stay granted by the High Court on construction work, is made clear by the Noida and Greater Noida authorities. There was no room to entertain any doubt as to the fact whether for a particular village the acquisition

20 Sep 2019·Final order·Appeared·Verified

Shivani Shukal v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. ADJ/NCR144/07/0816/2019 · for the respondent

17 Sep 2019·Final order·Verified

S Swaminathan v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144/07/0268/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

In support of its statement, the opposite party has filed a photocopy of the project details. Heard both parties and perused the case file. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 4. Whether agreements made before RERA came into force do not fall within the ambit of RERA? 2. Whet

13 Aug 2019·Final order·Verified

Abhishek Gera v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. NCR144030376/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

Office of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Hearing Bench 04A Shri Rajeev Kumar, Chairman Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainants 1 | NCR44030376/2049 | Abhishek Gera 2 | [?]44/05/370/20:9 | Ramnik Singh Makkar 3 | [?]744/05/0968/209 | Anand Kumar 4 | [?]44/06/0090/2049 | Na

27 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Apurv Sharma v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 12201827792 · Bench 2 Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

Complaint No. 42204827792, Apoorva Sharma, will be the lead case. The complaint application submitted by the complainants against the opposite party requests that EMI and penalty, legal fees and travel expenses be awarded. Briefly, the complainants state that the complainant booked Flat No. T-24 in the opposite party's

27 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Satyapal Singh v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 12201826697 · for the respondent

27 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Santosh Prasad v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 12201826696 · for the respondent

19 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Ved Prakash S/o Shri Ramji Lal v. La Residentia Developers Private Limited

Complaint No. 12201827211 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

In its second reply, the opposite party raised the point that the Authority has no power to decide any matter under Sections 42, 4, 8 and 49 of RERA, and that this falls within the work of the adjudicating officer. It stated that the State Government has not fixed any interest rate, and that the interest rate fixed und

4 Jul 2019·Final order·Verified

Prashant Jagwani v. Logix Infrastructure Pvt.ltd

Complaint No. 2201931471 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Hearing Bench-04A Shri Rajeev Kumar, Chairman Complaint No.: 220937474 Prashant Jagwani versus M/s Logix Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the Complainant against the Respondent, seeking

11 Jun 2019·Final order·Appeared·Verified

Pradeep Chandra Pandey & Smt Prabha Pandey v. G S Promoters Private Limited

Complaint No. 320188151 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent

On the complainant's complaint, the Bench passed the following orders on 02.04.2049: 4. The opposite party is directed to ensure that it gives the complainant possession, along with OC/CC, within 45 days of the order being uploaded, and that it obtains registration after paying stamp duty as per the rules. The opposite