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

PREM NARAIN
PUSHPINDER KAUR – Appellant
Versus
POONAM CONSTRUCTIONS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate with Appellant in person, for the Appellants; Nemo, for the Respondents

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member. This first appeal has been preferred under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.10.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 51/2007.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, the sole owner of property bearing Municipal Nos. 3-4-232 to 235,3-4-236/1, 2 and 3, admeasuring 550 Sq. Yards, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, entered into a Development Agreement dated 2.3.2001, for the development of a Commercial cum Residential Complex in the said property. As per Clause 2 of the said Agreement, the opposite parties were to construct and deliver 50% of the total constructed area proportionately on each floor as per the Municipal Permit to be obtained by them. As per Clause 10, the parking areas in the stilt were to be divided between the complainant and the opposite parties on 50:50 basis. It is the case of the complainant that he vacated the property on 26.4.2001 and handed over the same to the opposites parties on the said date. The opposite partie

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