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

D.R.VITHAL RAO, SUSHEELA CHELUVARAJU
SUDHIR G. RAO – Appellant
Versus
KOKILA – Respondent


ORDER

Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— In this complaint, under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Act, the complainant has sought direction to opposite party Nos. 5 & 6, the Builders, to handover the possession of the Flat bearing No. B-002 in the ground floor of the Multistoreyed building constructed on the ‘Schedule A’ property, facing Setlur Road, described in `Schedule-B’ and also a compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from opposite party Nos. 5 to 7.

2. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the land. Opposite party Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the builders.

3. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 4 to develop the land bearing No. 4, Setlur Street, Langford Town, Bangalore, described in Schedule-A, attached to the complaint. It was agreed to construct a multistoreyed residential apartments known as ‘Supreme Residency’.

4. The complainant entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 4 for the purchase of a flat, the Ground floor apartment bearing No. B-002, facing Setlur Road, as described in Schedule-B of the complaint for a sum of Rs. 9,03,125/- in addition to which the complainant was











































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