Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, J
Bathinda Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Sunish Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and appeal introduction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of complaint and initial payments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding payment defaults. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's expectations for clarity and performance from authorities. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's decision on refunds and interest. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
1. These two (2) appeals under S.19 of the Act 1986 have been filed apropos the same Order dated 25.9.2018 of the State Commission in complaint No. 314 of 2018.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for Bathinda Development Authority (the "development authority") and for Mr. Sunish Gupta (the "complainant"). We have also perused the record including inter alia the State Commission's Order of 25.9.2018 and the two (2) memoranda of appeal.
3. Relevant facts, as material for appreciating the issues germane, may first be recapitulated.
The complainant applied for allotment of a residential plot with the development authority on 30.10.2010. The tentative total price of the plot was Rs.44 lakh. 10% thereof, i.e. Rs.4.40 lakh was to be paid as earnest money. The complainant paid the same with his application. He was successful in the draw of lots held on 18.3.201
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
