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

DEEPA SHARMA
Rahul Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Supertech Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Nithin Chandran, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Manish Shukla, Advocate

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The admitted facts of the case are that the opposite party announced a residential project called ‘Capetown’ situated at GH-01/A, Sector-74, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201301. The complainant booked a unit bearing no. R026CC11202A on 13th (thirteenth) floor of Tower CCI with approximately super area of 2385 sq. ft on 14.11.2011 by paying the booking amount of Rs.8,81,190/- paid on 14.11.2011 and 23.11.2011. The opposite party issued an Allotment Letter-cum-Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.12.2011. The total consideration of the unit was Rs.90,35,772/- and the project was to be completed by February 2014 with six months of grace period. The complainant took a home loan from ICICI Bank on 17.01.2012 and a total sum of Rs.83,57,353/- till 28.12.2013 was paid by the complainant to the opposite party.

2. Case of the complainant is that despite its commitment to give possession of the subject property by 2014, no offer of possession had been received by the complainant till the date of filing of the present complaint. The complainant also wrote several letters to the opposite party regarding delay in handing over of the unit. No offer of possession was also

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