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

R.K.AGRAWAL, S.M.KANTIKAR, BINOY KUMAR
Rakesh Kumar Bohre – Appellant
Versus
Vatika Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Gurmandeep S. Sullar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. S.K. Sahni, Advocate

ORDER

The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Rakesh Kumar Bhore and Varsha Bohre (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) against Opposite Party Builder, Vatika Limited, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OP Builder’) seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the Builder towards purchase of the Residential Unit alongwith interest and compensation.

2. The facts as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainants applied for allotment of a flat in the proposed Group Housing Residential Scheme in the name and style of ‘Tranquil Heights – Vatika India Next’ located at Sector 82 A, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the Project), to be developed by the OP Builder in Nov. 2013 by signing a Expression of Interest Form and paying a sum of Rs.6 lakh towards booking amount to the OP Builder. As per website of the OP Builder, the Possession of the Flat was scheduled to be delivered in December 2017. At the time of booking, the Representative of the OP Builder informed that necessary approvals had been obtained from the Competent Authorities and allotment letter would be issued shortly. It was assur

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