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

ASHOK BHAN, VINEETA RAI
Boutique International – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vijay Mangla, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate.

ORDER :

1. Complainant/appellants purchased an industrial plot from the respondents. Possession of the plot was handed over to the appellants on 19.1.2006. Appellant completed the building and started commercial production on 17.4.2007. As per terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter dated 23.12.2005, 20% rebate was to be given on the total cost of land if the industrial unit starts commercial production within 3 years from the date of offer of possession. Offer was made to the appellant on 19.4.2007 and the appellant started its commercial production after completing all the formalities. Occupation Certificate was issued by Respondent No.2 on 12.4.2007. 20% subsidy as per letter of allotment dated 23.12.2005 on the cost of land amounting to Rs.82,24,800/- was released to the appellant on 15.10.2009 vide Cheque No.126673. Appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission alleging that due to delay in giving rebate on the cost of industrial plot, it suffered huge loss on account of interest on the amount of Rs.15 lakh which was given to the Complainant as rebate of 12% on the price of the plot. State Commission, relying upon the definition of ‘consumer’ given i

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