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

K.C.GUPTA, S.P.KAPOOR, DEVINDERJIT DHATT
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
ISHWAR RAWAT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the Respondent

ORDER

K.C. Gupta, President - This appeal has been directed by opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 against order dated 7.8.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which complaint of respondent No.1 (complainant) was accepted with costs of Rs. 2,100 and appellants as well as respondent No. 2 were directed to restore the allotment and complete the development works around the booth i.e. pavements, public toilet, drainage system, etc. and further respondent No. 1 would not be liable to pay interest on the balance amount and they were directed to recover the balance amount without interest.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Sh. Ishwar Rawat, respondent No. 1(complainant) was allotted commercial booth No. 48-P, Sector-17, Faridabad measuring 27 sq. yards in open auction vide allotment letter dated 19.4.1996. He had deposited 25% of the purchase money as per allotment letter and physical possession was delivered to him vide letter dated 14.5.1996.

3. It was next averred that appellants and respondent No. 2 failed to provide basic amenities and develop the area as per terms and conditions of the allotment le

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