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
Ratna Roy – Appellant
Versus
Babul Sarkar – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Harish Dasan and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocates

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The case of the complainant is that her brother-in-law late Madhab Roy was the owner of property No. 18(17), Purbachal in District 24 Parganas of West Bengal, he having constructed a G+2 storied building in terms of the sanction dated 20.9.2004. It is alleged in para 3 of the complaint that while engaged in the construction of the building, the deceased entered into an agreement for sale of the second floor flat to the complainant for a construction of Rs.3,10,000/- receiving a sum of Rs.60,000/- as the advance sale consideration. The aforesaid payment is stated to have been made in cash. This is also the case of the complainant that the aforesaid payment was followed by further payments aggregating to Rs.1,99,650/- on different dates. All the aforesaid payments are stated to have been made in cash. The deceased Madhab Roy having died a consumer complaint was instituted by respondent No.1 Babul Sarkar, brother-in-law of the deceased impleading wife and three others including his own wife Smt. Kalpana Sarkar, as the opposite parties.

2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner / respondent No.1 Smt. Ratna, who is the wife of Shri Madhab Ro














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