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

AJEYA MATILAL, SOMA BHATTACHARJEE
Nitai Dey – Appellant
Versus
Prasen Nayak alias Sri Prosenjit Nayak – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Shobhantanu Bhattacharyya and Sarbani Biswas, Advocates

ORDER

Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member—

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present along with the Complainant. OP is absent.

2. Heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

3. This is a Consumer Complaint filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 valued at Rs.35,20,000/-. The Complainant entered into an agreement dated 23.02.2015 for purchasing a flat situated at the 2nd floor at 17/6A, Biplabi Barin Ghosh Sarani, Kolkata – 700067 for consideration of Rs.35,20,000/-. The OP entered into an agreement for sale of a residential flat of 800 sq.ft. super built up area, more specifically mentioned in the 2nd schedule of the Agreement for Sale. The Agreement for Sale was notarised on 26.03.2015. It would appear from the Agreement for Sale dated 26.03.2015 at page 55 that the residential flat at the 2nd floor was measured with more or less of 800 sq.ft. super built up area including bedroom kitchens etc. The total consideration was Rs.35,20,000/-. As per the Agreement dated 26.03.2015 the committed date of delivery of possession of the flat was within 18 months from the date of agreement. The Complainant paid Rs.35,20,000/- through different cheques, bank

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