Loading…
Loading…
Advocate · Appearances before RERA, NCLT, DRT, the High Court and the Supreme Court
3,086orders and judgmentsAll verified by Editor
Only the judgments in which Puneet Jain's actual appearance is verified from the court record and documents are listed here, and each is manually verified by the lawontips.com team.
Orders 451–475 of 3,086 · Page 19 of 124
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAfter reservationVerified
Complaint No. NCR145/03/72116/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant
(T. Venkatesh) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAfter reservationVerified
Advocate · Appearances before RERA, NCLT, DRT, the High Court and the Supreme Court
3,086orders and judgmentsAll verified by Editor
Only the judgments in which Puneet Jain's actual appearance is verified from the court record and documents are listed here, and each is manually verified by the lawontips.com team.
Orders 451–475 of 3,086 · Page 19 of 124
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAfter reservationVerified
Complaint No. NCR145/03/72116/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant
(T. Venkatesh) (Chairman) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAfter reservationVerified
Complaint No. NCR145/03/72116/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant
Shri Rajeev Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Complaint No. — NCRI45/03/726/202 Vikas Agarwal Versus Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for grant of possession and interest for the delayed period. In brief, the complainant stat
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144030376/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainants 1 | NCR44030376/209 | Abhishek Gera 2 | 8244/05/]370/209 [?] | Ramnik Singh 3 | NCR44/05/0968/209 | Anand 4 | NCR44/06/0090/209 | Nadeem Alam 5 | 800]44/050364209 [?] | Sandeep Yadav Versus M/s Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The above matters have been presented under Section 39 o
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144030376/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Shri Rajeev Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Complaint PT—NCR44030376/209 Abhishek Gera Versus Logix SPREE Pvt. Ltd. In the matter in question, on 09.08.2024 the file was reserved for orders, and both parties were directed to file their written arguments by 20.08.2024. Neither party filed any written arguments. The arguments of
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/86925/2021 · Bench 3 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/86925/2021 · Bench 3 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/86925/2021 · Bench 3 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/86728/2021 · Bench 2 · for the respondent
The respondent also said that because the complainant did not pay the amount due under the agreed terms and conditions recorded in the agreement, the unit was cancelled, and the amount will be refunded to the complainant as per the terms agreed in the agreement. The respondent said that the relief sought by the complai
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/66551/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Presence:- Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Complaint No.:- NCRI44/2/6655/2020 Amit Amitabh Versus Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. This file has been put up for taking action under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Act for violation of the order passed earlier. In the complaint of the complainant, the following
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/66551/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar Bench-2 Presence:- Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint No.:- NCR44/2/6655/2020 Amit Amitabh Versus Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for grant of po
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/125666/2024 · for the complainant
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/0366/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Both parties were heard and the file was perused. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for determination :-- 1. Whether this Authority has jurisdiction to hear this case? 2. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether the compla
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/0366/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Complaint Number : NCR444 / 42 / 0366 / 2049 Arun Kumar versus A.T.S. Realty Pvt. Ltd. In the case in question, the file was reserved for orders. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the following orders were passed by the Bench in the matter under Section-34 of the Act on 25.06.2020 :- 1. The respondent is d
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/0157/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Presence:- Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Complaint Number:— NCRI44/42/0I57/209 Shripal Versus Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. This order sheet has been put up for taking proceedings under Section-63 of the Act and other relevant provisions for violation of the order passed earlier. In the complaint of the complainant, the
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/0126/2019 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/85699/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar Hearing Bench - 3 34 Complaint Number : NCRI44/4/85699/202 Nalini Ranjan versus Patel Advance JV Date: 02/06 / 2022 The file was put up. On call, the complainant was absent. Advocate Shri Mayank Kumar Pandey appeared on behalf of the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/85699/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Presence:- (Dr.) Deepak Swaroop Saxena, Member Presence:- T. Venkatesh, Member Complaint Number :- NCR44/I/85699/202] Nalini Ranjan Versus Patel Advance JV The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for getting possession and delayed period interest. In brief, the co
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/84705/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant
Shri Rajiv Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman | Sl. No. | Complaint Number | Complainant | | 1 | NCR44//84705/202] | Shashi Jain and Neha Jain | | 2 | NCRI44/I/8529/202] | Seema Arora and Dheeraj Arora | Versus Nexgen Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Mahagun Group) Along with complainants Shashi Jain and Neha Jain, a case has been instituted
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/84705/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant
Shri Rajiv Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Complaint No. — NCRI44//84705/2024 Shashi Jain and Neha Jain Versus Nexgen Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Mahagun Group) In the matter in question, hearing the arguments of both parties, the record was reserved for order by the Bench on 24.03.2023, and the respondent was directed by the Bench to
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65782/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
The present complaint petition has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking possession along with interest for the delay period. In brief, the complainant's case is that they booked unit corporate Suite-832 in the opposite party's project THE DOWNTOWN, and for this paid Rs. 20,37,959/- from time
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65782/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Presence: -- Shri T. Venkatesh, Member Complaint Number — NCRI44//65782/2020 Vijay Narayan Shukla and Archana Shukla Versus Granite Hill Properties Pvt. Ltd. This order sheet has been put up for taking proceedings under Section-38, /40 / 63 of the Act and other relevant provisions for violation of the order passed earl
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65375/2020 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65372/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar Status-Disposed · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65372/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar Status-Disposed · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65215/2020 · for the respondent
Complaint No. NCR145/03/72116/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant
Shri Rajeev Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Complaint No. — NCRI45/03/726/202 Vikas Agarwal Versus Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for grant of possession and interest for the delayed period. In brief, the complainant stat
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144030376/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Sr. No. | Complaint No. | Complainants 1 | NCR44030376/209 | Abhishek Gera 2 | 8244/05/]370/209 [?] | Ramnik Singh 3 | NCR44/05/0968/209 | Anand 4 | NCR44/06/0090/209 | Nadeem Alam 5 | 800]44/050364209 [?] | Sandeep Yadav Versus M/s Logix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The above matters have been presented under Section 39 o
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144030376/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Shri Rajeev Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Complaint PT—NCR44030376/209 Abhishek Gera Versus Logix SPREE Pvt. Ltd. In the matter in question, on 09.08.2024 the file was reserved for orders, and both parties were directed to file their written arguments by 20.08.2024. Neither party filed any written arguments. The arguments of
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/86925/2021 · Bench 3 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/86925/2021 · Bench 3 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/86925/2021 · Bench 3 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/86728/2021 · Bench 2 · for the respondent
The respondent also said that because the complainant did not pay the amount due under the agreed terms and conditions recorded in the agreement, the unit was cancelled, and the amount will be refunded to the complainant as per the terms agreed in the agreement. The respondent said that the relief sought by the complai
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/66551/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Presence:- Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Complaint No.:- NCRI44/2/6655/2020 Amit Amitabh Versus Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. This file has been put up for taking action under Section-63 and other relevant provisions of the Act for violation of the order passed earlier. In the complaint of the complainant, the following
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/66551/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar Bench-2 Presence:- Shri Balvinder Kumar, Member Complaint No.:- NCR44/2/6655/2020 Amit Amitabh Versus Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for grant of po
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/125666/2024 · for the complainant
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/0366/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Both parties were heard and the file was perused. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for determination :-- 1. Whether this Authority has jurisdiction to hear this case? 2. Whether the respondent's project was delayed due to force majeure? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether the compla
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/0366/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Complaint Number : NCR444 / 42 / 0366 / 2049 Arun Kumar versus A.T.S. Realty Pvt. Ltd. In the case in question, the file was reserved for orders. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the following orders were passed by the Bench in the matter under Section-34 of the Act on 25.06.2020 :- 1. The respondent is d
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/0157/2019 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Presence:- Smt. Kalpana Mishra, Member Complaint Number:— NCRI44/42/0I57/209 Shripal Versus Sikka Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. This order sheet has been put up for taking proceedings under Section-63 of the Act and other relevant provisions for violation of the order passed earlier. In the complaint of the complainant, the
Undated
UndatedFinal orderAppearedVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/12/0126/2019 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/85699/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar Hearing Bench - 3 34 Complaint Number : NCRI44/4/85699/202 Nalini Ranjan versus Patel Advance JV Date: 02/06 / 2022 The file was put up. On call, the complainant was absent. Advocate Shri Mayank Kumar Pandey appeared on behalf of the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/85699/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Presence:- (Dr.) Deepak Swaroop Saxena, Member Presence:- T. Venkatesh, Member Complaint Number :- NCR44/I/85699/202] Nalini Ranjan Versus Patel Advance JV The present complaint application has been instituted by the complainant against the respondent for getting possession and delayed period interest. In brief, the co
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/84705/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant
Shri Rajiv Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman | Sl. No. | Complaint Number | Complainant | | 1 | NCR44//84705/202] | Shashi Jain and Neha Jain | | 2 | NCRI44/I/8529/202] | Seema Arora and Dheeraj Arora | Versus Nexgen Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Mahagun Group) Along with complainants Shashi Jain and Neha Jain, a case has been instituted
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/84705/2021 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the complainant
Shri Rajiv Kumar, Hon'ble Chairman Complaint No. — NCRI44//84705/2024 Shashi Jain and Neha Jain Versus Nexgen Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Mahagun Group) In the matter in question, hearing the arguments of both parties, the record was reserved for order by the Bench on 24.03.2023, and the respondent was directed by the Bench to
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65782/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
The present complaint petition has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party seeking possession along with interest for the delay period. In brief, the complainant's case is that they booked unit corporate Suite-832 in the opposite party's project THE DOWNTOWN, and for this paid Rs. 20,37,959/- from time
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65782/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar · for the respondent
Presence: -- Shri T. Venkatesh, Member Complaint Number — NCRI44//65782/2020 Vijay Narayan Shukla and Archana Shukla Versus Granite Hill Properties Pvt. Ltd. This order sheet has been put up for taking proceedings under Section-38, /40 / 63 of the Act and other relevant provisions for violation of the order passed earl
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65375/2020 · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65372/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar Status-Disposed · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65372/2020 · Adjudicating Officer Gautam Budh Nagar Status-Disposed · for the respondent
Undated
UndatedFinal orderVerified
Complaint No. NCR144/11/65215/2020 · for the respondent