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

M.SHREESHA
Pranav Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Dynamic Infra Developers (P) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Himanshu Gupta

ORDER

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member—For reasons cited in the applications seeking condonation of delay, the delay of 60 days in FA/115/2017, 110 days in FA/187/2017 and FA/188/2017 is hereby condoned.

2. Aggrieved by the orders in Complaint Nos. 827 of 2016, 828 of 2016 and 829 of 2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short the State Commission), the Complainants preferred these Appeals under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (in short the Act). Since all the Appeals deal with common facts, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 115 of 2017 is being taken as the lead case.

4. The brief facts stated in the Complaint are that the Complainants have purchased three apartments from the Opposite Parties namely, G-230/B. S-230/B AND S-227/B at Blosk-B, “Tulsi Residency” at Parimma Marg, Goverdhan, Tehsil-Gorba, District Mathura vide three individual sale deeds, each dated 27.05.2014, after payment of the full consideration amount of Rs.16,05,000/- (Rs. 5,35,000/- each). It was averred that prior to the purchase of the subject property by the Complainant, a meeting was held betw








































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