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

2004 Supreme(SC) 1430

H.K.SEMA, TARUN CHATTERJEE
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
C. VIDYA WATI – Respondent


ORDER

1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we propose to dispose of h this appeal with a short order.

4. The appellant floated a scheme "Indira Puram Priyadarshani Enclave Plot Scheme" in the year 1992. Pursuant to the said Scheme, the respondent applied for an allotment of 200 square metres of land in Scheme No. 634, a Code No. 703. The estimated cost of the plot mentioned in the brochure was fixed at Rs 2,64,000. The respondent paid the registration fee of Rs 24,620 on 24-2-1992 and, thereafter, paid Rs 2,57,090 in five instalments by 9-2-1993. Despite payment of the instalments, the possession could not be delivered to the respondent till 10-4-1996 when the amount was refunded to her, stated to be on her request. Considering these facts, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarded interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum, which order has been affirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the National Commission"). The order of the National Commission






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