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

DINESH SINGH, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
C. Venkata Rani – Appellant
Versus
B. S. Uma Maheswara Rao – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.R. Vasantha Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Advocate

ORDER

This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 31.01.2010 in appeal no. 679 of 2010 and appeal no. 681 of 2010 and the Order dated 15.04.2011 in appeal no. 509 of 2010 passed by the State Commission arising out of the Order dated 26.03.2010 in complaint no. 637 of 2008 of the District Commission.

2. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 26.03.2010 of the District Commission, the impugned Orders dated 31.01.2011 and dated 15.04.2011 of the State Commission and the petition.

3. The dispute relates to a flat bought by the complainant (the petitioner herein) from the opposite party (the respondent herein).

The District Commission partially allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to complete the balance works and hand over the subject flat to the complainant within three months on receipt of Rs.63,450/- being half of the balance amount payable by the complainant. It further directed the complainant to deposit the other half of the balance amount of Rs.63,450/- with the District Commission within one month, for the opposite party to withdraw the s

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