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

SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Adyaraj S. – Appellant
Versus
Patel Engineering Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Ms. Priya Balakrishan, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Kunal Cheema, Advocate

ORDER

These Consumer Complaints have been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, and seeking refund with ancillary reliefs.

2. The facts and question of law involved in these Complaints are similar in all material particulars except for minor variations in the dates, consideration amount and Flat numbers, therefore these Complaints are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, CC/1938/2019 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from this Complaint.

3. The factual background, in brief, is that in the year 2011, the Opposite Party No. 1 represented to the Complainants that they were developing a project named “Townsville” on land located at Sy No. 352, Hulimangala Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, Karnataka, and claimed to be the exclusive owners of this land. The Complainants submitted an application for the allotment of a residential apartment on 15.03.2012 and was subsequently allotted Unit No. 31A in Block No. 16, with a total area of 3,477 Sq. Ft. and two parking spaces, as per the Allotment Letter dated 24.03.2012. Following 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