NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Shri R.K. Bhatia, J
Saurav Sanyal and Jayanta Sanyal – Appellant
Versus
M/s. IREO Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the developer's obligations and actions post-complaint. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. debate around completion and obligations of the developer. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. legal standards for forfeiture of amounts in real estate. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. decision on the refund and adjustments of deposit. (Para 8) |
1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Rahul Ahuja, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Saurav Sanyal and Jayanta Sanyal have filed above complaint for directing M/s. IREO Pvt. Ltd. (i) for declaring letter dated 6.6.2016, terminating the allotment of the complainants and forfeiting earnest money, as illegal, (ii) to refund Rs. 93,90,150 with interest @18% per annum, from the date of deposit till the date of payment, (iii) to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) to pay Rs. 2 lacs, as the cost of litigation and (v) Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances.
3. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the opposite party (the developer) was a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of d
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.