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

SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA
Arabinda Das Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Debabrata Ghosh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Dilip Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. S.S. Dhar, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Samiksha Bhattacharya, Presiding Member.—The instant complaint case has been filed Under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of CP Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the OP.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that both the complainants are the owner of two separate flats at premises No 12/1, Sitaram Road, Banshdroni, P.S. Regent Park, Kolkata – 700 070. The Complainant No. 1 together with his son Mr Anish Das Gupta purchased one flat being No. A-3 on the 3rd floor and one car parking space on the ground floor vide deed of conveyance dated 16.05.2016 registered in the office of the ADSR at Alipore 24 Parganas(South). The Complainant No. 2 together with his wife Mrs. Sneha Bose Raha purchased one flat being No. A-1 on the first floor and one car parking space on the ground floor at the same premises vide deed of conveyance dated 25.05.2016 which is registered in the office of the ADSR at Alipore, 24 Parganas(South). As per the agreement OP had agreed and accepted the whole work at the aforesaid premises within February, 2016 and also agreed to provide the completion certificate from the competent authority after completion of work but till date OP neither completed the wor

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