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

R.K.AGRAWAL
Indu G. Nainani – Appellant
Versus
Kamala Park Developers – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Rajeev K. Panday and Mr. Nirmal Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent: Nemo

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission), whereby the State Commission dismissed the Complaint filed by Dr. Indu G. Nainani & Gobind N. Nainani (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) by holding that since there was no privity of contract between M/s. Kamla Park Developers (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Developer) and the Complainants in respect of sale of flat together with parking lots, no deficiency can be alleged against the Opposite Party Developer.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainants had purchased a Flat No.901 on 9th floor in the Building ‘Casa-Di-Angels’ situated on a plot of land at City Survey No. F/450 of Village Bandra, Mumbai alongwith two Stilt Car Parking and One Open Car Parking from Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Anuj Gupta vide Sale Deed dated 27.08.2009 for a total consideration of Rs.3,15,00,000/-. The original Sale Deed was executed by the Developer on 16.03.2009 in favour of Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Anuj Gupta and they were the confirming party to the sec

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