Tribunal rules against RPD in collection dispute; appeals dismissed. No costs awarded.

The tribunal held that RPD was not acting as an agent of ANS when collecting amounts from the Appellants. It was concluded that there was no jural relationship between the Appellants and ANS, as RPD failed to deposit the collected amounts in the designated joint account. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the rejection of the Appellants' claims by the RP and the Adjudicating Authority, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
(a) Whether RPD being agent of ANS collected the part sale consideration from the AppellantsRs.
(b) Whether there is jural relationship between the Appellants and ANSRs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue (a): Whether RPD being agent of ANS collected the part sale consideration from the AppellantsRs.

The MOU dated 03.12.2012 between ANS and RPD explicitly states that RPD shall complete the construction of five towers and sell its share of saleable area directly, collecting all dues in favor of ANS Apartments Pvt. Ltd. A/c Shri Rajneegandha Greens. Clause 17 of the MOU specifies that the collected amount will be transferred to RPD as per a mutually agreed mechanism. Clause 42 of the MOU clarifies that this agreement does not constitute a partnership or agency relationship between ANS and RPD. Thus, the tribunal concluded that RPD was not acting as an agent of ANS when collecting amounts from the Appellants.

Issue (b): Whether there is jural relationship between the Appellants and ANSRs.

The Appellants relied on various documents, including the MOU dated 03.12.2012, minutes of meetings, and letters from RPD to ANS requesting the issuance of credit notes and allotment letters. The tribunal observed that, according to the MOU and minutes of meetings, RPD was supposed to deposit the collected amounts in the joint account of Shri Rajneegandha Greens, which it failed to do. The letters from RPD to ANS indicated that RPD collected part consideration from the Appellants but deposited the amounts in its own account instead of the designated joint account. There was no evidence that ANS issued any credit notes or allotment letters in favor of the Appellants in response to these letters. Consequently, the tribunal held that there was no jural relationship between the Appellants and ANS, and RPD did not collect the part sale consideration as an agent of ANS.

Conclusion:

The tribunal concluded that the RP and the Adjudicating Authority rightly rejected the claims of the Appellants. The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

---