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

AJIT BHARIHOKE, S.M.KANTIKAR
Sanjay Kumar Baranwal – Appellant
Versus
Selene Constructions Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—By this order we propose to dispose of RA/196/2016 filed on behalf of the complainants.

2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the review application are that Sanjay Kumar Baranwal and his wife Bhawna Kumari, Chander Prabha and her son Arun Choudhary and Smt. Anuradha Lal had entered into a builder buyer agreement with the opposite party. Being aggrieved of delay in delivery of possession, increase in super area, change in basic cost of the flat etc., the above said set of complainants filed a joint complaint in this Commission. No application seeking permission under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pursue the joint complaint was filed. However, a prayer in this regard was made in prayer clause A. The predecessor Bench without disposing the plea under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, issued notice to the opposite party and proceeded with the complaint. During the pendency of the complaint, complainant Chander Prabha took possession of the subject flat booked by her. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, vide proceedings dated 19.5.2016 the predecessor Bench took the view that since Chander Prabha had already












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