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

DEEPA SHARMA
Sudha – Appellant
Versus
Jaiprakash Associates Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Nakul Singh Pathania, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—This Complaint has been filed on 20.09.2017.

2. The brief facts as alleged in the Complaint are that on 27.01.2013, the Complainant no.3 Sh. Naren Nath Sarvaria booked a unit no. GDI 143304 in Garden Isels project of the Opposite Party and the possession was to be handed over within 42 months, i.e., three and a half year. The Complainant no.3 took a home loan for the said unit on 21.04.2015 and paid EMI of approximately Rs.35,000/- per month and paid total amount of Rs.59,48,479.86/- towards the said unit. He also had to pay the late payment of installment @12% p.a. It is alleged that the Complainant No.3 was again duped for the second time by the Opposite Party in June-July 2015. When he had went to the office of the Opposite Party complaining about the delay in construction of the Garden Isels, it was suggested by the Opposite Party that the Complainant no.3 should buy another flat. Thereafter, the flat in the project Imperial Courts was booked by all the Complainants on 12.06.2015. It was a four bedroom flat measuring 3724.68 sq. ft. as

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