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

RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, INDER JIT SINGH
Ruchira Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Emaar Mgf Land Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Pushpraj Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Ankit, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short ‘the Act’) by the Complainant against Opposite party (OP) as detailed above, inter alia praying for:—

(i) To direct OP to refund Rs.1,26,81,173/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of the receipt of the payments made to OP.

(ii) To direct OP to pay delayed possession compensation equal to interest at the rate 18% p.a. on amount deposited by the Complainant with OP w.e.f. September 2012.

(iii) To direct OP to refund wrongfully charged taxes and other charges along with the interest on that amount @ 18% p.a. from date of receipt of such wrongfully levied charges and taxes..

(iv) To direct OP to pay Rs.30 lakhs as compensation towards mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.

(v) To direct OP to pay Rs.15 lakh towards cost of litigation.

2. Notice was issued to OP, giving them 30 days’ time to file written statement. Written statement was also filed by OP.

3. It is averred in the Complaint that:—

(i) The com

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