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

AJEYA MATILAL, NITYASUNDAR TRIVEDI
Sarjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pinnacle Realtors – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant No.1:Ms. Mousumi Chakraborty, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member.—Ld. Counsel appearing for the Complainant is present. Today is fixed for ex parte hearing of the complaint case. Complainant has already filed BNA.

2. This is a case under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 valued at Rs.53,80,556/-.

3. The fact of the case is in short like that one Complainant/Mr. Sarjit Singh being one of the Land Owners entered into an agreement for development of the scheduled property mentioned therein on 27.04.2015 by a registered agreement for development of the schedule property.

4. The development agreement is in annexure-A. The Complainant acquired undivided 1/3rd share of the total land. The complainant became absolute owner of the schedule property by a deed of gift and he claimed that he is in possession of the scheduled property.

5. It appears from the page No. 7 of the Development Agreement that the project is required to be completed within 36 months from the date of sanction plan of the building. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the OP did not make any endeavour to get the sanctioned plan. There was also a stipulation in the said agreement if the Developer could not complete the project w

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