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

MANOJIT MANDAL
Bakul Banerjee Acharjee – Appellant
Versus
Maa Tara Construction – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Sanhita Shaoo, Suvendu Das and Tarun Kanti Ghosh, Advocates

JUDGMENT

Manojit Mandal, President.—The complaint case under section 17 read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed against the opposite party praying for the following reliefs :-

“Directing the opposite party to provide an alternative flat which is constructed properly and strictly in accordance with the building sanction plan along with building completion certificate in lieu of the present defective flat in question and alternatively the opposite party be directed to make payment of Rs.66,47,781/- only to the complainant and further order be passed amounting Rs.10,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant and further cost of Rs.50,000/- be awarded in favour of the complainant and pass further order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.”

2. Briefly stated the complaint case in short is that the complainant with the intention to purchase a flat for residential purpose approached the opposite party and the opposite party is a developer and constructed the building at premises No. A-2/29, Diamond Park, P.S. Haridevpur, P.O. Joka, Kolkata - 700 104.

3. The complainant agreed to purchase a flat at the sec

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