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

RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
Gautam Jambotkar – Appellant
Versus
Maruthi Corporation Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. S. Suman and Mr. K. Ram Reddy, Advocates

ORDER

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. S. Suman, Advocate and Mr. K. Ram Reddy, for the opposite parties.

2. The complainants filed the aforementioned complaint for directing the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the builder) (i) to refund a sum of Rs.10140068/- along with interest @15% per annum, from the date of respective deposits till its payment, (ii) to pay Rs.25/- lacs as the compensation for mental agony and harassment and (iii) to pay any other order, which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts, in short, as stated in the complaint are that the builder was a company, engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial buildings and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. In the year 2007, the builder launched a project of township in the name of “Maruthi Heritage Park” on Survey Nos. 24, 25/1, 25/1 and 25/3, village and gram panchayat Annaram, mandal Faruqnagar, district Mhahbubnagar, Andra Pradesh. The complainants are husband and wife and were residing in USA. On coming to know about this project, the co

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