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

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, ANIL SRIVASTAVA
Sanjay Nagpal – Appellant
Versus
Aura Infrastructure (P) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Complainant in person
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party and has prayed the following:

a) Set aside the demand of the defendant as demanded vide its letter dated 22-01-12, 09-04-12, 31-05-12.

b) Set aside the cancellation notice dated 01-10-12 of the defendant Company.

c) Direct the defendant to pay below mentioned amount in favour of the complainant:

i. Rs. 14,07,963/ (Rupees Fourteen Lacs seven thousand nine hundred sixty three only) towards interest on account of delay in possession for the period May 2009 till date

ii. Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) on account of damages

iii. Penditlete interest during the Proceeding

iv. Rs. 50,000/ Fifty thousand or such amount as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit towards cost and expenses of litigation, in favour of the complainant

v. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

vi. Total Claim Amt. Rs 24,07,963 (Rupees Twenty four lacs seven thousand nine hundred sixty three only).

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudicati

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