Mr. Kapil Jolly & Ors vs Mr. Jalesh Kumar Grover & Ors

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 917 of 2026 & I.A. No. 3636, 3637 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

Kapil Jolly & Anr. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Jalesh Kumar Grover Resolution Professional ...Respondent(s) Ducturus Resolution Professionals pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not made For Respondents : Mr. Abhirup Dasgupta, Rahul Gupta, Vagisha Tiwari, Rahul Dadhich, Adv.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 18.05.2026: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.03.2026 by which

order an application filed by the Appellant has been rejected.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that according to the policy of

the Govt. the cost shall not exceed 16 lakhs for Gurgaon-Manesar Urban

Complex and this price will be inclusive, consisting of land cost, construction

cost and all other levies/charges like External Development Charges (EDC),

Infrastructure Development Charges (lDC) etc. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant

has referred to letter dated 20.08.2009 issued by the office of the Financial

Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Govt. of Haryana. He submits that the

RP has wrongly demanded much more amount than Rs. 16 lakhs from the

Appellant, hence, the Appellant has filed the application on which the

impugned order has been passed. It is submitted that the Appellant under

protest has made the payment and has taken possession of the units.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that amount demanded by the

RP was in accordance with the Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) and no

amount of 16 lakhs regarding the land cost and another construction cost

and all other levies are being demanded and the amount were demanded with

regard to other charges as per the BBA.

5. We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. The Adjudicating Authority has noticed the reply in the impugned order

and in para 3 relevant clauses of the BBA were quoted. In the BBA Clause 3

which is mentioned following :-

"3. The basic price does not include charges for the following, which shall be payable additionally as and when demanded by the company unless otherwise stated specifically in this agreement:

(i) Cost on installation of electricity meter, security deposit, energizing charges etc., as mentioned in clause 2(d).

(ii) Stamp Duty, Registration Charges and other incidental charges for the execution and registration of Sale Deed of the flat and/or for the execution of this agreement

(iii) Power Back up /Installation charges as mentioned in clause 2(e)

(iv) Interest Free Maintenance Security Deposit, payable to the company/ nominee of the company as mentioned in clause 2(f)

(v) Cost on installation of Solar water heating system as mentioned in clause 2(g).

(vi) Cost on installation of firefighting system as mentioned in clause 2(h).

(vii) Proportionate charges for provision of any other items/facilities not specifically mentioned in this agreement as may be required by any authorities or considered appropriate by the company.

(viii) Any levies, taxes like service tax, turnover taxi Vat or any other levies/taxes imposed by Central or State Government or any other authorities."

7. The above indicates that BBA itself contemplate that basic price does

not include charges for several items which are payable additionally as and

when demanded by the Company.

8. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant also tried to contend that BBA was biased

and is not binding on the Appellant. When in the BBA the Appellant has

agreed to pay additional charges it is not open for the Appellant to contend

that he is not liable to pay anything beyond 16 lakhs when BBA has clearly

provided additional charges which was beyond 16 lakhs.

9. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned passed by the

Adjudicating Authority, hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu