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

R.K.AGRAWAL, S.M.KANTIKAR
Goutam Das,Bilasini Das – Appellant
Versus
LIC HFL Care Home Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Rahul Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Basudeb Panigrahi, one of the Complainants
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, Mr. Yuvraj Sharma and Mr. Prashant Rana, Advocates

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Consumer Complaint was filed under section 12(1)(c) read with Section 21(a)(i) and Section 22(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), initially by 24 Complainants through Mr. Gautam Das and Mr. Chidananda Jena in a representative character, being the authority holders, on their own behalf and that of all the other Allottees in the Project “Jeevan Anand” (for short “the Project”) proposed to be developed by LIC HFL Care Home Ltd, Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Opposite Party’), seeking possession of the Units complete in all aspects in the Project, along with delayed compensation in view of causing legal injury and financial loss to the Complainants as well as innumerable other allottees.

2. Since all the Complainants have booked their respective flats in the same Project of the Opposite Party; entered into identical Agreements to Sell with them and the issues regarding their allotment such as delay in handing over possession, deficiency in construction, are identical and resultantly almost same r

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