SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1450

S.H.KAPADIA, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Huda – Appellant
Versus
Babeswar Kanhar – Respondent


ORDER

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. The controversy in this appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The respondent No. 1 applied for allotment of a plot in response to an advertisement issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short HUDA ). The application was for allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 square yards, and deposit of Rs. 46,625/- was made on 26.12.2000. The HUDA intimated respondent No. 1 by letter dated 30.10.2001 that plot No. 2205 in Sector 65, Faridabad has been allotted to him. The respondent No. 1 purportedly, on the basis of Clause-4 of the letter, sent a registered letter on 28.11.2001, intimating HUDA that he is not interested in accepting the allotment. The letter was received on 3.12.2001 by HUDA. Referring to Clause-4 of the letter, HUDA directed forfeiture of the earnest money deposited. A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act ) was lodged by respondent No. 1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short the District Forum ). By order dated 31.3.2003, the District Forum directed refund of the amount deposited along with 12% interest with effect from the d







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top