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

ANUP K.THAKUR
Raheja Design & Contract Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
H. C. Jain – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Himanshu Nagpal, Advocate

ORDER

Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition No.641 of 2020 has been filed with a delay. According to the application for condonation of delay, I.A. No.998 of 2021, it has been claimed that there was no delay in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court waiving limitation with effect from 23.03.2020. As per computation of the Registry, delay, counted from the date of impugned order, 20.11.2019, is of 86 days.

2. It has been contended in the application and in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the order of the State Commission dated 20.11.2019 was issued on 20.01.2020 and received on 24.01.2020. The period of 90 days, counted from 24.01.2020 required the revision petition to be filed, within 24.4.2020. In between, vide order dated 23.03.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court waived limitation on account of pandemic. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid position, delay application is allowed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. He submits that the flat was booked by the respondent/complainant, with earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter, despite follow up by the OP, no effective steps were taken by the complainant to

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