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

DINESH SINGH
KDP Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate with Ms. Diksha Narula, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Yash Tandon, Advocate

ORDER

This appeal has been preferred in challenge to the Order dated 08.01.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 323 of 2017. The appeal has been erroneously filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986; it is however being taken up under section 19 of the Act which deals with ‘Appeals’ to this Commission against an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers under section 17(a)(i).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘builder co.’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (the ‘complainant’). Also perused the record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 08.01.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

3. The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute. Briefly, the builder co. entered into an agreement with the complainant on 23.06.2013 in respect of a residential unit. The assured date for delivery of possession of the subject unit was 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement. The same elapsed on 22.06.2016. Delivery of possession was not made within the assured period, nor was it even made within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote a period which may appear rea

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