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

M.S.RANE, V.K.DATE
GULAB GOVIND KARALE – Appellant
Versus
CIDCO – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant :Mr. Satish Beejoy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Meshram, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal which is filed in the year 1998 and remained to be admitted, at the stage of admission itself.

2. The appellant is original complainant in the aforesaid complaint and not being specified with the award in his favour dated 26.9.1997 of Thane Forum, he has preferred this appeal.

3. It is noticed from the material available before us and lengthy submission advanced before the Forum by them, that the complainant made an application for allotment of tenement to the respondent. He also paid the initial amount by instalments aggregating to Rs. 98,354/-. The said amount as stated is paid by instalments from time to time.

4. It is not necessary to go into detail factual aspects. It is noticed that the complainant wanted the premises to be allotted at a particular Sector which was not possible for the CIDCO, as the allotment was to be done by draw of lots. District Forum referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Appeal No. 717 of 1995 as also the National Forum with similar facts and circumstances as in the present case in which respondents were a party appellant holding that CIDCO cannot be compelled to al


































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