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

R.K.AGRAWAL, S.M.KANTIKAR
Vijay Purushottam Kale – Appellant
Versus
Hetali Enterprises, Builders & Developers – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Ashutosh Marathe, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.1:Mr. Chetan B. Raithatha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.2:Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal and Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—These three Consumer Complaints have been filed by Dr. Vijay Purushottam Kale, Dr. Purushottam Gopalrao Kale and Dr. Satishchandra Purushottam Kale (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Complainants”) under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) against M/s Hetali Enterprises, Builders & Developers (Opposite Party No. 1) and Andheri Nav Bahar CHS (Opposite Party No. 2/ the Society) at Vile Parle, seeking compensation towards the alleged deficiency, unfair trade practice and delayed possession of their flats under redevelopment plan.

2. Since the facts of the cases and the Opposite Parties are same, these Complaints are being disposed of by this common Order.

3. The Complainants were residing at “Nav Bahar” building in Vile Parle. Their Society named Andheri Nav Bahar Co-op Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 2) invited bids from various builders/developers to entrust the redevelopment work (demolition and new construction) of the existing buildings ‘Nav Bahar’ at Lallu

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