- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pavankumar Atmaram Lihla And Another Petitioner(S) v. Milestone Enterprise And Another (S).
Factual and Procedural Background
The matters arise from multiple consumer complaints filed by purchasers (allottees) of residential apartments in a project named "Swastik Milestone" developed by M/s Milestone Enterprise (the Builder) in District Surat, Gujarat. The complainants had taken possession and executed sale deeds in their favour. They approached the District Forum alleging several deficiencies in services rendered by the Builder, including deficient carpet area, inadequate parking, non-provision of promised amenities (steam bath, Jacuzzi, gym, billiard room, indoor games, etc.), inferior lift quality, lack of 24-hour sweet water supply, and inferior materials in roads and boundary wall.
The District Forum allowed the consumer complaints and directed the Builder to provide the promised amenities (or construct them), to initiate approval processes, and awarded various monetary reliefs (including monthly compensation for delay, amounts for mental shock and cost of the application). The State Commission, on appeal, maintained the District Forum's directions and additionally directed the Builder to provide sufficient parking for 50 cars and 25 scooters.
Aggrieved parties filed multiple revision petitions before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): 23 revision petitions by the complainants and 46 revision petitions by the Builder (the instant opinion deals with many of these grouped revision petitions, e.g., Revision Petitions Nos. 1524–1568 of 2019 and several others and also Revision Petitions Nos. 1972–1994 of 2018 etc., as reflected in the cause list). The hearing took place before Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Jain, Presiding Member, and an oral order was pronounced.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the delay in filing Revision Petition Nos. 1524 to 1568 of 2019 should be condoned (and on what terms).
- Whether the procedural requirements laid down in CC No.97 of 2016 (Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) for class actions under Section 12(1)(c) of the C.P. Act apply to individual consumer complaints filed under Section 12(1)(a).
- Whether the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction (because the value of services/compensation exceeded Rs.20 lakhs) and, if so, whether that defect requires dismissal of complaints at the revisional stage.
- Whether the Builder was deficient in providing the promised parking and club-house/amenities, and, if so, what relief (including compensation) should be awarded given that possession and BUC have already been delivered and sale deeds executed.
- How to determine the alleged deficiency in carpet area (disputed between 1020 sq.ft. and 1006 sq.ft.) and what remedy follows if a deficiency is found.
Arguments of the Parties
Builder's (M/s Milestone Enterprise) Arguments
- The procedure prescribed by this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 (Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., dated 7.10.2016) should have been followed; the Builder relied on that procedure (submitted by its counsel).
- The District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the value of each apartment (and compensation claimed) exceeded Rs.20 lakhs; therefore the District Forum should not have entertained the complaints.
- In its written version resisting the complaints, the Builder stated that all amenities had been provided and that the BUC had been issued only after those facilities were in place; it also claimed adequate parking had been provided and that some sport/amenity demands were accommodated by providing a children's play area in place of certain amenities at the request of some allottees. The Builder also contended that the complex was maintained by the society for the last three years and therefore the Builder was not responsible for present maintenance issues.
Complainants' Arguments
- The complainants alleged specific deficiencies: actual carpet area less than promised (1006 sq.ft. vs 1020 sq.ft.), grossly inadequate parking (one car and two scooters promised per allottee), non-provision of club-house facilities (steam bath, Jacuzzi, gym, billiards, indoor games, table tennis etc.), inferior lift and road/boundary materials, and lack of 24-hour sweet water.
- They sought reliefs including provision/creation of promised amenities and compensation/refund for deficiencies. They opposed the Builder's claims regarding adequacy of facilities and maintenance responsibility.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| CC No.97 of 2016 - Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (dated 7.10.2016) | The procedure prescribed in that decision for consumer complaints instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the C.P. Act (i.e., class action / representative complaints) involving public notice/notice to all interested persons. | The Court held reliance on this decision by the Builder was misconceived because the procedure applies to class actions under Section 12(1)(c) and not to individual complaints under Section 12(1)(a); no public notice is required for an individual complaint. |
| Civil Appeal No.5699 of 2019 - M/s Treaty Construction & Anr. Vs. M/s Ruby Tower Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (decided 19.7.2019) | Principle that a plea regarding pecuniary jurisdiction which was not raised at the earliest opportunity before the State Commission (or before the forum which first heard the matter) cannot be entertained at a later stage after the State Commission has decided on merits. | The Court referred to and relied on this decision to support its conclusion that the revision petitions should not be dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction because the Builder had not raised that plea before the District Forum and the matter had been decided on merits by the District Forum and State Commission. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in distinct steps, each applying legal principles to the facts shown in the record:
- Condonation of Delay: The Court heard the matter and, with consent of complainants' counsel, condoned delay of 350 days in filing Revision Petition Nos. 1524–1568 of 2019, subject to payment of Rs.10,000 as costs in each such revision petition to the complainants within two weeks.
- Nature of proceedings and inapplicability of class-action procedure: The Court observed that the procedure articulated in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (CC No.97 of 2016) concerned complaints under Section 12(1)(c) of the C.P. Act (class action) where public notice / notice to all interested persons is required. The Court concluded that the Ambrish procedure could not be imported into proceedings involving individual consumer complaints under Section 12(1)(a); therefore the Builder's reliance on that procedure was “wholly misconceived.”
- Pecuniary jurisdiction objection: Although Section 17 of the C.P. Act suggested that the State Commission would be the appropriate forum where the value exceeded Rs.20 lakhs, the Court recorded that the Builder had not raised the objection to pecuniary jurisdiction before the District Forum. The Court reasoned that, because the District Forum proceeded to decide the complaints on merits and the complaint as to pecuniary jurisdiction was not taken at the earliest stage, it would be inappropriate at the revisional stage to dismiss the complaints for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court cited the Supreme Court decision in M/s Treaty Construction (supra) in support of this approach.
- Findings on parking: The Court examined the brochure and approved plans and found that the Builder had promised one car and two scooter parkings per allottee (78 apartments). The Court found that no evidence showed provision of 78 dedicated car parkings (each accommodating one car and two scooters) and that the approved plans only provided open parking sufficient for about 28 cars at stilt level. The Court rejected the Builder's suggestion that circulation/margin areas could be used as car parking (noting those areas are meant for movement of vehicles and emergency access). The Court concluded the Builder was deficient in providing the promised parking.
- Appropriate remedy for parking deficiency: Recognising that the building was constructed, BUC obtained, sale deeds executed and possession given, the Court determined that constructing new multi-storied parking might be impractical or take years and may not be approved. Therefore, the Court found monetary compensation to be the appropriate relief for deficiency in parking and awarded Rs.2,00,000 to each complainant for parking deficiency.
- Findings on club-house and related amenities: The Court found the Builder was obliged to provide a club-house equipped with steam bath, Jacuzzi, gym hall, billiard room and indoor games as promised in the brochure. No such club-house had been constructed; the Builder's claim that it had converted the area into a children's play area at the request of some allottees did not suffice because there was no evidence that complainants had consented to the substitution. The Court found this to be a deficiency and awarded Rs.1,00,000 to each allottee as compensation for non-provision of the club-house amenities.
- Measurement of carpet area and remedy: The parties produced rival expert reports (complainants' report said 1006 sq.ft.; Builder's report said 1020 sq.ft.). The Court considered it necessary to appoint a third agency to measure the carpet area. Because the apartments were identical, the Court directed the Commissioner, Surat Municipality, to nominate an Executive Engineer to measure the carpet area of one apartment chosen by the complainants. The Executive Engineer's inspection was to be on-the-spot after notice to the parties, signed by parties present, and the report filed with the State Commission. If the measured area is found to be less than 1020 sq.ft., all complainants would be entitled to a refund proportionate to the deficient area calculated on the basis of the price they paid to the Builder.
- Timelines and interest: The Court directed that compensation for parking (Rs.2,00,000) and for club-house deficiency (Rs.1,00,000) be paid without interest to each complainant within six weeks from the date of the order. The compensation/refund arising from measurement (if any) shall be paid within six months of verification by the Executive Engineer nominated by the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation. Any amount found payable under the area-direction shall carry simple interest @10% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint until payment.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
The Court disposed of the revision petitions and made the following operative directions and consequences for the parties (direct effects):
- Condonation of Delay: The delay of 350 days in filing Revision Petition Nos. 1524 to 1568 of 2019 was condoned, subject to payment by the Builder of Rs.10,000 as cost in each such revision petition to the complainants within two weeks from the date of the order.
- Measurement of Carpet Area: The Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation shall nominate an Executive Engineer to measure the carpet area of one apartment chosen by the complainants. The inspection is to be done after notice to parties, conducted on the spot, signed by parties present, and the report filed with the State Commission. If the area is found less than 1020 sq.ft., all complainants shall be entitled to proportionate refund of the price they paid for the apartments (calculated on the basis of the deficient area).
- Compensation for Parking Deficiency: The Builder shall pay Rs.2,00,000 (two lakh rupees) without interest to each complainant for the deficiency in providing the parking facility; this is to be paid within six weeks from the date of the order.
- Compensation for Non-provision of Club-house Amenities: The Builder shall pay Rs.1,00,000 (one lakh rupees) without interest to each complainant for not providing the club-house equipped with the promised facilities; this is to be paid within six weeks from the date of the order.
- Payment Schedule for Area-related Refunds: Any refund payable pursuant to measurement (Direction (ii)) shall be paid within six months of the Executive Engineer's verification of the carpet area.
- Interest on Area-related Refunds: Any amount found payable under the carpet-area direction shall carry simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of institution of the original complaint until the date of payment.
The order provides direct reliefs to the complainants (compensation, mechanisms for measuring deficiency, timelines and interest). The Court applied established principles of procedure and jurisdiction (distinguishing class-action procedural requirements from individual complaints and following precedent on raising jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity). The opinion does not purport to state that it creates a new binding precedent beyond the application of the cited authorities to the facts of these matters.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1972 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. PAVANKUMAR ATMARAM LIHLA & ANR. A/3, 504, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. ANJUDEVI PAVANKUMAR LIHLA
A/3, 504, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1524 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PAWANKUMAR ATMARAM LIHLA & ANR. A-3, 504, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT ...........Respondent(s)
1
GUJARAT
2. ANJUDEVI PAWANKUMAR LIHLA
A-3, 504, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1525 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. URMILA SHIVPRASAD BAGADIYA
A-3, 603, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. SHIVPRASAD JAGDISHPRASAD BAGADIYA
A-3, 603, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1526 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s)
2
Versus
1. GAYATRIPRASAD HUBLAL UPADHYAY & ANR. A-3, 304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. KAMLESH GAYATRIPRASAD UPADHYAY
A-3, 304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1527 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. LALKRISHNA SHIVRATAN THANVI
A-3, 802, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1528 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s)
3
Versus
1. DINESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL & ANR. A-3, 302, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RASHMIBEN DINESHBHAI PATEL
A-3, 302, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1529 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. KALPESH RAJNIKNAT JOGANI
A-3, 1304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND
S. G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. KEWIN RAJNIKANT JOGANI
A-3, 1304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND
S. G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1530 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF ...........Petitioner(s)
4
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. HULASBEN KANTILAL SOLANKI & ANR. A-3, 803, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. KANTILAL VACHHRAJ SOLANKI
A-3, 803, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1531 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ASHWINI RITESH SHARMA & ANR. A-3, 204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RITESH KUMAR DWARIKANTH SHARMA
A-3, 204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1532 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM & ANR. ...........Petitioner(s)
5
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. PUSHPABEN REVACHAND KESHWANI & ORS. A-3, 1204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND
S. G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RADHA SUNDARJI KESHWANI
A-3, 1204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND
S. G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
3. PRASHANT SUNDAR KESHWANI
A-3, 1204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND
S. G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1533 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. VANDANA DILIP AGRAWAL
A-3, 604, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
6
REVISION PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MANJUDEVI MOTILAL JAIN
A-3, 1003, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. LALIT KUMAR BAHULAL TAVADIYA
A-3, 203, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1536 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM & ANR. ...........Petitioner(s)
7
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. ROMA P. SURI & ANR. A-3, 402, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. PAWAN JUGALKISHOR SURI
A-3, 402, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1537 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. VIMALKUMAR JASRAJ MEHTA
A-3, 303, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1538 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM & ANR. ...........Petitioner(s)
8
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. SARITA MITRADAS SHETTY
A-3, 504, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1539 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. NIKITA PAWAN KHATUR
A-3, 704, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1540 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF ...........Petitioner(s)
9
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. VINITA SHAILESH NANGALIYA
A-3, 804, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1541 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. HITESH HUKAMICHAND JAIN
A-3, 102, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1542 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s)
10
Versus
1. USHAKUMARI MAHENDRAKUMAR DANGI
A-3, 201, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. PURNIMAKUMARI VINODKUMAR DANGI
A-3, 201, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1543 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. RAKESH CHUNILAL SURANA(JAIN)& ANR. A-3, 101, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RATAN RAKESH JAIN
A-3, 101, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1544 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF ...........Petitioner(s)
11
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. ABHAY AGRAWAL
A-3, 703, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1545 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ILA KANTILAL PATEL
A-3, 801, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1546 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s)
12
Versus
1. KIRIT LAXMI KANT MEHTA & ANR. A-3, 904, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. SANGITA KIRIT MEHTA
A-3, 904, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU SURAT GUJARAT
3. FENIL KIRIT MEHTA
A-3, 904, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1547 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ABHAY AGRAWAL
A-3, 703, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1548 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT ...........Petitioner(s)
13
GUJARAT
Versus
1. RAKESH CHUNILAL SURANA (JAIN)
A-3, 101, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RATAN RAKESH JAIN
A-3, 101, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1549 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. USHAKUMARI MAHENDRA KUMAR DANGI
A-3, 201, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. purnimakumar vinodkumar dangi A-3, 201, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1550 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s)
14
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. SARITA MITRADAS SHETTY
A-3, 504, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1551 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. HITESH HUKAMICHAND JAIN
A-3, 102, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1552 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT ...........Petitioner(s)
15
GUJARAT
Versus
1. VINITA SHAILESH NANGALIYA
A-3, 804, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1553 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. NIKITA PAWAN KHATUR
A-3, 704, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1554 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ROMA P. SURI & ANR. A-3, 402, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S. G. UNIVERSITY VESU, ...........Respondent(s)
16
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. PAWAN JUGALKISHOR SURI
A-3, 402, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1555 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ILA KANTILAL PATEL
A-3, 801, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1556 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. VIMAL KUMAR JAS RAJ MEHTA
A-3, 303, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU ...........Respondent(s)
17
SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1557 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MAJUDEVI MOTILAL JAIN
A-3, 1003, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1558 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. VANDANA DILIP AGRAWAL
A-3, 604, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
18
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ASHWINI RITESH SHARMA
A-3, 204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RITESHKUMAR DWARIKANTH SHARMA
A-3, 204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SUARAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. HULASBEN KANTILAL SOLANKI & ANR. A-3, 803, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S.
G. UNIVERSITY VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. KANTILAL VACHHRAJ SOLANKI
A-3, 803, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY BEHIND S. G. UNIVERSITY VESU, ...........Respondent(s)
19
SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PAWANKUMAR ATMARAM LIHLA & ANR.
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1562 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PAWANKUMAR ATMARAM LIHLA & ANR. A-3, 504, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. ANJUDEVI PAWAN KUMAR LIHLA
A-3, 504, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
20
REVISION PETITION NO. 1563 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. URMILA SHIVPRASAD BAGADIYA & ANR. A-3, 603, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. SHIVPRASAD JAGDISHPRASAD BAGADIYA
A-3, 603, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1564 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. DINESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL & ANR. A-3, 302, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
21
2. RASHMIBEN DINESHBHAI PATEL
A-3, 302, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1565 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. LALITKUMAR BABULAL TAVADIYA
A-3, 203, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1566 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. GAYATRI PRASAD HUBLAL UPADHYAY & ANR. A-3, 304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
22
2. KAMLESH GAYATRIPRASAD UPADHYAY
A-3, 304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1567 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. KIRIT LAXMIKANT MEHTA & 2 ORS. A-3, 904, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. SANGITA KIRIT MEHTA
A-3, 904, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
3. FENIL KIRIT MEHTA
A-3, 904, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1568 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE ...........Petitioner(s)
23
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. LALKRISHNA SHIVRATAN THANVI
A-3, 802, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1569 OF 2019
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM &
ANR.
SARGAM HOUSE, OPP. BLIND MAN'S SCHOOL, GHOD
DOD ROAD,
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI PARTNER OF
MILESTONE ENTERPRIESE
1201, SWASTIK HOUSE, BESIDE TERAPANJ BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PUSHPABEN RAVACHAND KESHWANI & ORS. A-3, 1204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RADHA SUNDARJI KESHWANI
A-3, 1204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESODENCY, BEHIND
S.G. UNIVERSITY VESU
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1973 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. URMILA SHIBPRASAD BAGADIYA & ANR. A/3, 603, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. SHIVPRASAD JAGDISHPRASAD BAGADIYA
A/3, 603, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU, ...........Petitioner(s)
24
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1974 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. GAYATRIPRASAD HUBLAL UPADHYAY & ANR. A/3, 304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. KAMLESH GAYATRIPRASAD UPADHYAY
A/3, 304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1975 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. LALKRISHNA SHIVRATAN THANVI
A/3, 802, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
25
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1976 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. DINESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL & ANR. A/3, 302, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RASHMIBEN DINESHBHAI PATEL
A/3, 302, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1977 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. KALPESH RAJNIKANT JOGANI & ANR. A/3, 1304, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. KAVIN RAJNIKANT JOGANI
RESIDENCE AT 102, GIRNAR APARTMENT GOPIPURA,
SUBHASHCHOK
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s)
26
3. KAVIN RAJNIKANT JOGANI
RESIDENCE AT 102, GIRNAR APARTMENT GOPIPURA,
SUBHASHCHOK
SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1978 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. HULASBEN KANTILAL SOLANKI & ANR. A/3, 803, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. KANTILAL VACHCHHRAJ SOLANKI
A/3, 803, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1979 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. ASHINI RITESH SHARMA & ANR. A/3, 204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT ...........Petitioner(s)
27
GUJARAT
2. RITESHKUMAR DWARIKANATH SHARMA
A/3, 204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TARAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1980 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. PUSHPABEN REVACHAND KESHWANI
A/3, 1204, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1981 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. VANDANA DILIP AGRAWAL
A/3, 604, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR. ...........Respondent(s)
28
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1982 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. MANJUDEVI MOTILAL JAIN
A/3, 1003, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
3. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1983 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. LALITKUMAR BABULAL TAVADIYA
A/3, 203, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE ...........Respondent(s)
29
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1984 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 512/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. ROMA PAVAN SURI & ANR. A/3, 402, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. PAVAN JUGALKISHORE SURI
A/3, 402, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1985 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. VIMALKUMAR JASHRAJ MEHTA
A/3, 303, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI ...........Respondent(s)
30
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1986 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 514/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. SARITA MITRADAS SHETTY & ANR. A/3, 1201, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MITRADAS NARAYAN SHETTY
A/3, 1201, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1987 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. NIKITA PAVAN KHATTAR
A/3, 704, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT, ...........Respondent(s)
31
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
REVISION PETITION NO. 1988 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 500/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. VANITA SHAILESH NANGALIYA
A/3, 804, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1989 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 517/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. HITESH HUKMICHAND JAIN
A/3, 102, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1990 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 518/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. USHAKUMARI MAHENDRAKUMAR DANI & ANR. A/3, 201, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H ...........Petitioner(s)
32
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. PURNIMAKUMARI VINODKUMAR DANGI
A/3, 201, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1991 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 519/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. RAKESH CHUNILAL SURANA (JAIN) & ANR. A/3, 101, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. RATAN RAKESH JAIN
A/3, 101, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR. TERAPANTH BHAVAN,
CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1992 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 520/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. ABHAY AGRAWAL
A/3, 703, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU, ...........Petitioner(s)
33
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1993 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 521/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. ILA KANTILAL PATEL
A/3, 801, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 1994 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2018 in Appeal No. 522/2017 of the State Commission Gujarat)
1. KIRIT LAKSHMIKANT MEHTA & ANR. A/3, 904, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT
2. SANGITA KIRIT MEHTA
A/3, 904, SWASTIK MILESTONE RESIDENCY B/H
SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, VESU,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s)
34
Versus
1. MILESTONE ENTERPRISE & ANR.
PARTNERSHIP FIRM 204, TIRUPATI PLAZA, A WING
ATHWA GATE
SURAT
GUJARAT
2. MAHESHBHAI MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI
PARTNER AND ADMINISTRATOR, MILESTONE
ENTERPRISE, 1201, SWASTIK HEIGHTS, NR.
TERAPANTH BHAVAN,CITY LIGHT,
DISTRICT-SURAT
GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : IN ITEM NO.30-52 For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. H. D. Thanvi, Advocate
Mr. Shrey Yadav, Advocate
Mr. A.S. Bule, Advocate
For the Opposite Party(ies)
: Mr. Varshal M. Pancholi, Advocate For the Respondent : IN ITEM NO.53-98 For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Varshal M. Pancholi, Advocate For the Opposite Party(ies)
: Mr. H. D. Thanvi, Advocate
Mr. Shrey Yadav, Advocate
Mr. A.S. Bule, Advocate
Dated : 21 Jan 2020
ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)
Condonation of delay
Heard. With the consent of the learned counsel for the complainants, the delay of 350 days in filing the Revision Petition Nos. 1524 to 1568 of 2019 is condoned subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost in each revision petition to the complainants, within two weeks from today.
Revision Petitions
2. M/s Milestone Enterprise hereinafter referred to as the Builder, which is a partnership firm advertised for sale of residential apartments in a project, namely, Swastic Milestone which it proposed to construct in District Surat of Gujarat. The complainants in these matters booked
35
residential apartments in the aforesaid project and possession of the apartments has already been delivered to them. The sale deeds in their favour were also executed. After taking possession of the apartments and execution of the sale deeds in their favour, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints alleging several deficiencies on the part of the Builder in rendering services to them. The deficiencies alleged by the complainants included the following:-
The actual carpet area of each flat was only 1006 sq.ft. though it was stated by the Builder to be 1020 sq.ft.
1.
The Builder was required to provide parking for one car and two scooters to each of the allottees but the parking provided by it wasgrossly inadequate.
2.
The Builder was required to provide facilities such as steam bath, Jacuzzi bath, gym hall, billiard room and indoor games, table tennis, etc.which it did not provide in the complex.
3.
The lift provided by the Builder was of inferior quality.4. 24 hours sweet water was not provided.5.
The material used on the roads was of inferior quality and the boundary wall was constructed using inferior material and had developed cracks.
6.
3. The complaint was resisted by the Builder which interalia stated in its written version that all the amenities had been provided in the complex and only thereafter the BUC had been issued by the Municipal Corporation. It was also claimed that adequate parking had been provided to the allottees. As regards sport facilities, it was stated in the written version of the Builder that some allottees sought children play area in place of the aforesaid amenities and their request was accepted by the Builder which provided children play area in place of those amenities. It was also claimed that the complex was being maintained by the society of the allottees for last three years and the Builder therefore was not responsible for lack of proper maintenance.
4. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaints with the following directions to the Builder:-
(2) The opponent is directed to provide facilities like steam bath, Jacuzzi bath, jim hall, billiards room, indoor game, table-tennis, carrom board, chess etc. as per mentioned in the brochure to the flat holders of 'A/2' and 'A/3' building. Opponent is also directed to provide the above facilities in the open place of COP shown in the approved plan.
(3) The opponent is directed to initiate proceedings by submitting necessary plan regarding this before the relevant authority within one month from the date of this order and get approval. And has to complete such construction within two years from the date of order.
36
(4) The opponent due to his fault if does not complete the construction within two years then opponent do pay monthly Rs.5,000/- (in words rupees five thousand) to the complainant/flat holder for the delay of each month.
(5) The opponent has not provided facilities as per mentioned in the brochure so opponent do pay Rs.7,000/- (in words rupees seven thousand only) to the complainant towards mental shock, harassment, agony etc.
(6) The opponent do pay Rs.3,000/- (in words rupees three thousand only) to the complainant towards the cost of this application.
(7) The opponent do pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant out of the court within 30 days.
5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, both the parties approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 25.4.2018, the State Commission while maintaining the directions given by the District Forum also directed the Builder to provide sufficient parking space for 50 cars and 25 scooters. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, 23 revision petitions have been filed by the complainants whereas 46 revision petitions have been filed by the Builder.
6. The learned counsel for the Builder has made two submissions. His first submission is that the procedure prescribed by this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 - Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. dated 7.10.2016 has not been followed. The second submission of the learned counsel is that since the value of each apartment was more than Rs.20 lakhs, the District Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.
7. In my opinion, reliance placed upon Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) as regards the procedure is wholly misconceived since the procedure prescribed in respect of a consumer complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the C.P. Act which is primarily a class action cannot be adopted while deciding an individual consumer complaint filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the C.P. Act. No public notice is required in an individual complaint filed by the consumer. The said public notice or individual notice to all the persons interested in the subject matter of the complaint would be required only when a class action in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the C.P. Act is initiated by one or more consumers on behalf or for the benefit of all the consumers having the same interest in the subject matter of the consumer complaint.
8. As regards the pecuniary jurisdiction though it can hardly be disputed that in view of the provisions contained in Section 17 of the C.P. Act, the State Commission was the appropriate Forum for entertaining the consumer complaints instituted by the allottees, the value of the services of the Builder hired or availed by each allottee alongwith compensation claimed by him being more than Rs.20 lakhs in each case, it is an admitted position before me that the plea for want of pecuniary jurisdiction was not taken by the Builder before the District Forum. Had the plea been taken at the initial stage, it would have been possible for the District Forum to return the complaints to the concerned complainant with a direction to them to institute the same before the concerned State Commission. That having not been done and the District Forum having proceeded to decide the consumer complaints on merits, it will not be
37
appropriate for this Commission to dismiss the complaints at the revisional stage, for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5699 of 2019 - M/s Treaty Construction & Anr. Vs. M/s Ruby Tower Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. decided on 19.7.2019, which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-
"7. The contention on the part of appellants as regards pecuniary jurisdiction has only been noted to be rejected. The National Commission has observed, and rightly so, that such a plea was not specifically raised before the State Commission at the earliest opportunity; and the State Commission having already decided the matter on merits, such a technical objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction could not have been countenanced before the National Commission. We find no error in the National Commission rejecting this plea as being wholly untenable at the given stage."
9. Coming to the issue of car and scooter parking, a perusal of the Brochure issued by the Builder would show that the Builder had promised one car and two scooters parking to the prospective allottees. The learned counsel for the Builder has drawn my attention to the following note contained in the Brochure and his submission is that depending upon the plans approved by the concerned authorities, the parking facility could change and that they were required to provide the parking only as per the plans approved by the concerned authorities:-
"All Plan/Drawing/Facilities/Amenities are subject to approval of respective authorities and may be changed necessary. The discretion remain with developer. All rendering/ floor plants/pictures and maps are artists conception and not actual depiction of building. We the builders have the authority to make the required changes without any prior notice."
10. In my opinion, the contention cannot be accepted. The plans are prepared by the Builder and are approved by the concerned authorities as per the applicable building byelaws, rules and regulations. No Municipal Authority would ever reduce the parking proposed by a Builder though it may seek enhancement of the parking proposed by him.
11. The case of the Builder is that parking is available on the ground level as well as at underground level which is sufficient for parking one car and two scooters of each allottee. In my opinion, since the Builder proposed to construct 78 apartments in this complex, he ought to have provided 78 earmarked parkings, one for each allottee and such parking should have been sufficient for parking one car and two scooters. That however was not done. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence of the parking space provided in the complex being sufficient for parking of 78 cars and 156 scooters. Admittedly the Builder in this case did not even plan 78 dedicated parkings sufficient to accommodate one car and two scooters in each parking in the plans got approved by it. Therefore, the Builder has been deficient in rendering services to the complainants, it having not provided one car parking and two scooters parking to each of them.
12. A perusal of the plans shows open parking for some cars and scooters at stilt level but it is sufficient for parking only 28 cars though sufficient scooters can also be parked there. It is evident from its bare perusal that it cannot be sufficient for parking 78 cars and 156 scooters and it is meant only for parking 28 cars. No car parking slot has been ear-marked for a
38
particular allottee. As a result, the allottees of all the 78 flats have to share the parking space meant for 28 cars. Obviously, only some of them will be able to park cars and rest will have to look elsewhere for parking their cars particularly in night time. Though it is suggested by the learned counsel for the Builder that the cars can be parked in the margin area i.e. circulation area meant for movement of the vehicles including emergency vehicles such as fire tenders, the said margin area/circulation area ought not to be used for the parking of cars and cannot be taken as the Builder having provided the required car parking space to the allottee. The Builder was required at least to provide so much space exclusively for parking, which could accommodate at least 78 cars and 156 scooters. That having not been done, the Builder has clearly been deficient in rendering services to the complainants.
13. The next question which arises for consideration is as to what would the appropriate order to be passed in respect of the parking at this stage when the building has already been constructed, the requisite BUC has already been obtained, the possession of the flats has already been given and the sale deeds have already been executed. It is suggested by the complainants that multi-storied car parking can be constructed by the Builder on the ground floor space meant for the parking of the cars. However, that may not be a feasible solution at this stage. The plans for construction of a multi-storied car parking even if submitted by the Builder on direction of this Commission, may be or may not be approved by the concerned municipal authority. Even if the plans are approved, it will take years to construct a multi- storied car parking which by its very nature is a complex construction. Moreover, in that eventuality the allottees will not be able to use even the parking space which they are presently using for parking their cars during the period construction is carried out. In my opinion, in the above-referred facts and circumstances, a direction for payment of adequate compensation for the deficiency in providing the requisite car parking to them would be an appropriate relief to the complainants. The Builder in my opinion should pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh to each of the complainants for the deficiency in providing car parking to them.
14. As far as the sports facilities are concerned, admittedly the Builder was required to provide the facilities such as a club house with steam bath, Jacuzzi bath, gym hall, billiard room and indoor game, table tennis, etc. in the complex constructed by it. No club house has been constructed and the said facilities have not been provided elsewhere in the complex. As noted earlier, the case of the Builder is that on the request of some of the allottees it has converted the area meant for providing club house with the above-referred facilities into play area for the children. There is no evidence or even allegation of the Builder having taken consent of the complainants before converting the area meant for club house into a play area. Even if there was a demand from some of the allottees for providing a play area for the children, the Builder was not entitled to provide such play area at the cost of providing a club house with the above-referred facilities as per the promise made by it at the time of selling the flats to the complainants. Therefore, the Builder must necessarily compensate the complainants for not providing the club house with the above-noted facilities to them. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the Builder should pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation to each allottee for not having provided the club house with steam bath, Jacuzzi bath, gym hall, billiard room and indoor game, table tennis, etc. to them.
15. As regards the carpet area of the flats, both the parties had produced reports from their respective experts. As per the report filed by the complainants, the carpet area of each flat was only 1006 sq.ft. whereas as per the report filed by the Builder, the said area was 1020 sq.ft., the
39
difference being 14 sq.ft in each apartment. In order to resolve the aforesaid issue, it would be necessary to appoint a third agency for measuring the carpet area of the apartments. Since the apartments of identical area have been constructed, it will be sufficient if the carpet area of one of the apartments chosen by the complainants is inspected by the said agency. The Commissioner, Surat Municipality is, therefore, requested to nominate an Executive Engineer to measure the carpet area of one apartment chosen by the complainants. The inspection by the Executive Engineer so nominated by the Commissioner shall be carried out after notice to the parties. The proceedings shall be conducted by him on the spot, got signed from the parties present at the spot and shall be filed with the concerned State Commission. If the area of the said flat is found to be less than 1020 sq.ft., all the complainants shall be entitled to refund of the amount which they paid for the deficient area, calculated on the basis of the price which they had paid to the Builder for the flats sold to them.
16. No other contention is advanced by either party.
17. The revision petitions are therefore, disposed of in terms of the following directions:-
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Surat shall nominate an Ex. Engineer of the Corporation to measure the carpet area of one of the apartments chosen by the complainants. If the carpet area of the said flat is found to be less than 1020 sq.ft., all the complainants shall be entitled to proportionate refund of the price which they have paid to the Builder for the apartment.
1.
The Builder shall pay Rs.2 lakh as compensation without any interest to each of the complainants for the deficiency in providing parking facility to them.
2.
The Builder shall pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation without any interest to each of the complainants for not providing the club house equipped with facilities such as steam bath, Jacuzzi bath, gym hall, billiard room and indoor game, table tennis, etc.
3.
The compensation as per the Directions (ii) & (iii) above will be paid within six weeks from today whereas the compensation in terms of Direction (i) shall be paid within six months of Executive Engineer nominated by the Commissioner, Surat Municipal Corporation verifying the carpet area of the apartment chosen by the complainants.
4.
If any amount is found payable to the complainants in terms of Direction (i) above, it shall also carry simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of payment.
5.
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
40
Alert