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

K.RAMANNA, G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI
NEERAJ BHOPE – Appellant
Versus
ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Advocate, for the Appellant; M/s. Indus Law, Advocates, for the Respondent

ORDER

K. Ramanna, President - All these three complaints filed by the respective complainants against the OPs 1 to 3 with a prayer to execute the sale deed in respect of flats applied by them by providing all amenities and world class facilities as stated in their broacher and further directed to pay Rs. 50,000 p.m. from the date of respective dates of agreement till delivery of the flat as compensation or in the alternative refund the entire amount deposited by them together with interest at 24% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and further directed to pay Rs. 80,000 as pre-closure charges or to pay pre-closure charges to the Bank directly.

2. Though the complainants in the aforesaid three complaints are different, the OPs in all the three complaints are one and the same, the amount paid by them are varies to one another and the relief claimed are one and the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law, all three complaints are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common order.

3. Complainants in Complaint No. 107/2009 being the husband and wife with an intention to purchase a flat, booked Flat No. 100

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