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

J. RAJENDRA, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Bijender Singh – Appellant
Versus
IREO Grace Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Appearance not marked.
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Mr. Aamir Husain, Advocates.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member.—We propose to dispose of preliminary objection raised by opposite party challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of limitation.

2. In brief, complainant booked a 3 BHK flat in “The Corridors”, Sector 67A, Gurgaon for total basic sale price of Rs.1,62,30,886/-. Payment of Rs.16,50,000/- was made against the booking amount vide cheque dated 22.03.2013. A receipt against the same was issued on 06.04.2013 and an acknowledgement dated 13.04.2013 was also issued by the opposite party. A request for further payment of Rs.16,96,486/- was made by opposite party vide letter dated 14.04.2013 which was paid by the complainant vide cheque dated 18.05.2013. The Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was forwarded by the opposite party on 12.03.2014. Further, towards the third instalment for payment of Rs.19,96,928/- a request letter was forwarded by the opposite party on 18.03.2014 against which the complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.06.2014. Thereafter, the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement of Unit No.CD-A10-07-704 was forwarded by the opposite party on 10.07.2014. A termination/cancellation letter dated 17.11.2014 was forwarded by the opposite par

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