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

SUBHASH CHANDRA, SADHNA SHANKER
Megacity Apartment Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sudeep Kumar Pathak – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member.—This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 21.06.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 593 of 2017, whereby the complaint was disposed of.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘developer’) and learned counsel for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 21.06.2018 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.

3. There is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal.

No application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed. However, in the interest of justice, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The facts, in brief, of the case are that on 01.11.2012, the complainants entered into an agreement with the developer to purchase a self-contained flat measuring about 1295 sq. ft. more or less on the 6th floor situated at Block – Vibhuti, Phase – II, together with one covered car parking space on the ground floor under project ‘Deeshari Megacitgy’ situate

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