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

V. Murlidhar – Appellant
Versus
Gokul Estates – Respondent


ORDER

S.A. Kader, President - This is a complaint under section 17 read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The Complainant was originally represented by his Power of Attorney Agent Mr. S. Satyamurthi, and on his death, by his wife Smt. S. Bhanumathy. The Complainant was previously employed as a Senior Project Engineer with the 2nd Opposite Party. He applied to the 2nd Opposite Party for a Housing Loan and approached the 1st Opposite Party for purchase of two flats bearing Nos. 1-A and 1-B in the ground floor in the housing complex promoted by the 1st Opposite Party at Door No. A -92, 67th Street, 12th A venue, Ashok Nagar, Madras 600083. The deed of sale dated 28.3 .1990 has been executed and registered in his favour for a sum of Rs.54,687/- in respect of the undivided share of the land by the 1st Opposite Party's nominee. The Complainant deposited this deed of sale with the 2nd Opposite Party and secured a housing loan of Rs.2,49,400/ -. It is alleged by the Complainant that the interest agreed upon was only 9%. But the 2nd Opposite Party has subsequently escalated the interest rate to 18% and then to 26%. The complainant claims to have paid to the 1st Opposite Party





















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