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

K.S.CHAUDHARI, B.C.GUPTA
Chandan Banik – Appellant
Versus
Sumona Bagchi (Bhattacharya) – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant :Ms. Anjani Aiyagari, Advocate.

ORDER

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.07.2011, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. CC/08/72, “Sumona Bagachi (Bhattacharya) & ors. versus M/s Ratnakar Properties Pvt. Ltd. & ors.,” vide which the complaint filed by the present respondents 1 & 2 was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants / respondents 1&2 filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in respect of non-execution of registration of conveyance deed in respect of three flats in question. The OP 1 and present respondent 3, M/s Ratnakar Properties Pvt. Ltd., is the builder / developer. The OP 2, Smt. Nirmala Banik was the sole owner of municipal premises – 26 A, Hindustan Park, Police Station Gariahat, Kolkata, comprising land and building. After the death of the said Nirmala Banik, OP 2, the present petitioner, Chandan Banik and respondents 4 & 5, Ashim Banik and Ashis Banik were impleaded as legal representatives of Smt. Nirmala Banik. The petition















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