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

MUKESH V. SHARMA, SATISH A. MUNDE
Sunil Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Supreme Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Varsha Vaidya, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Dr. Satish A. Munde, Member.—

This is one of the group matter:

The Complainant has filed this complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The gist of the complaint is as under:-

2. The Opposite Party is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Opposite Party in the year 2010 had started to advertise their project ‘Hex City’ situated at Survey Number 55/5(A)1, 55/5(A)2, 55+56(2)(2), 56+57(3), 61/3A, 61/3B, 65/1(2), 65/1(3), 66/3 situated at village Rohinjan, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The complainant was looking for residential apartment for his own use in the year 2012. At that time, he came to across advertisement given by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the complainant visited to the office of the Opposite Party. At that time, the Opposite Party represented that the Opposite Party is owner of the land bearing survey number 55/5(A)1, 55/5(A)2, 55+56(2)(2), 56+57(3), 61/3A, 61/3B, 65/1(2), 65/1(3), 66/3, situated at village Rohinjan, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. It was also represented that the Opposite Party has all rights, title, interest to develop the land and to construct the flat as per the

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