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

NAWAB SINGH, B.M.BEDI, URVASHI AGNIHOTRI
VINITA GOYAL – Appellant
Versus
UNITECH LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for the Appellant

ORDER

Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President (Oral)- This complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") before this Commission.

2. It is the case of the complainants that they booked a flat bearing No. 203-B, measuring 875 sq. ft., with the opposite parties in the project known by the name The Arcadia , at South City, Gurgaon. The sale consideration of Rs. 17,93,750 was paid.

3. It is further the case of the complainants that as per the agreement dated May 16th, 2007 (Annexure C-2), the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 30 months of the execution of agreement subject to the payment of the entire amount due and payable by the purchasers to the vendors. The opposite parties later on increased the super area from 875 sq. ft. to 895 sq. ft and offered the possession of the flat on April 14th, 2011, that is, after more than 52 months of the booking. The opposite parties further demanded (i) a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 on account of car parking charges and service tax thereon; (ii) Rs. 5,000 on account of misc. charges and; (iii) Rs. 65 per sq. ft instead of Rs. 50 per sq. ft on account of interest free security charges. In spite

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