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

V.K.JAIN, B.C.GUPTA
Rajneesh Malik – Appellant
Versus
BPTP Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Ashwini Shakuja, Mr. Chetanya Puri, AdvocatesAlong with complainant in person

ORDER

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant, who is partner in a business firm, booked a commercial plot, measuring 200 sq. yds., with the opposite party in March, 2006 and agreed to pay a total consideration of Rs.65.00 lacs for purchasing the said commercial plot. The complainant claims to have paid more than Rs.58.00 lacs to the opposite party. The price of the said plot was later revised by the opposite party to Rs.70,49,600/-. According to the complainant, he decided to cancel the allotment and take refund of the amount paid by him. However, instead of making the refund sought by him, the opposite party issued a demand letter, asking for further payment of Rs.50,30,752/- from the complainant. This is also the grievance of the complainant that the plot allotted to him was changed from SCO-G64 to SCO-J02. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission, seeking payment amounting to Rs.58,29,400/-, alleged to have been paid to the opposite party, along with interest @ 18% per annum, which according to the complainant, comes to Rs.1,65,38,865/-. The complainant is 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