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

SUSHMA TANWAR, SUNIL KUMAR GARG
RAMJILAL – Appellant
Versus
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Agarwal, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg, President—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 25.10.1996 passed by the District Forum, Alwar in Complaint Case No. 355/96 by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The necessary facts given rise to this appeal are as follows:

That the appellant complainant has filed a complaint before the District Forum on 18.5.1996 stating that during the auction proceedings conducted by the respondents he also participated and on 20.2.1993 for plot measuring 31.59 sq. mts. he also gave bid and ¼th amount to the tune of Rs. 7,248/- was deposited by him and the rest amount was deposited by him on 10.3.1993 in the office of other respondents. It was further stated in the complaint that the respondents issued a letter on 18.3.1993 for giving possession to the complainant appellant but the case of the complainant appellant was that he was not given the possession of the plot which he purchased through auction proceedings that had taken place on 20.2.1993.

A reply was filed by the respondents on 12.9.1996 and their case was that after the issuance of the possession letter dated 18.3.193 it would be presumed that within two week












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