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

MANOJIT MANDAL, SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH
Sandeep Kr. Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Ms. Tanusree Chowdhury and Mr. Debasis Mitra, Advocates

JUDGMENT

Shaymal Kumar Ghosh, Member—The instant consumer case has been instituted by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties praying for refund of Rs. 6,52,980/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum, Rs.10,000,00/- towards compensation, Rs. 4,00,000/- towards litigation cost, etc.

2. To sum up the matter , it is stated that OP No. 1 is a Pvt. Ltd. Company. Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 both are directors of the OP No. 1/developer company. The Complainants both have entered into an agreement with the OP No. 1 on 02.05.2017 for purchasing 3BHK flat having an area of 900 sq.ft. more or less situated at 5th floor Block No. 19 within the District South 24 Parganas. The consideration amount has been fixed at Rs. 34,40,000/- and as per terms and conditions of the said agreement, the complainants have paid Rs. 6,44,000/- on the different dates. Apart from said payment of consideration amount the OP/developer company has claimed service charges amounting to Rs. 28,980/- and accordingly the complainants have paid the same through cheque. As per terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement the development work would be completed within 42 months

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