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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1084

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. SUBHASH NANDI – Appellant
Versus
Canopy Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
SC/19/CC/112/2018



Petitioner Advocates:Mr. Pavel Das ,Respondent Advocate: Avik Kumar Das, Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, Soumen Mondal,Avik Kumar Das,Koyeli Mukhopdhyay, Soumen Mondal,Avik Kumar Das,Koyeli Mukhopdhyay, Soumen Mondal,Avik Kumar Das,Koyeli Mukhopdhyay, Soumen Mondal

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/19/CC/112/2018 DR. SUBHASH NANDI PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O DR. SANATAN NANDI, HB -33, SECTOR -III, SALT LAKE, KOLKATA - 700 106.KOLKATA,WEST BENGAL.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus Canopy Projects Pvt. Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - Regd. office at DN -37, Salt Lake City, Sector -V, Kolkata - 700

091.,WEST BENGAL.

Mr. Amitabh Kejriwal, Director, Canopy Projects Pvt. Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - office at DN -37, Salt Lake City, Sector -V, Kolkata - 700 091.,WEST BENGAL.

Mr. Bikash Kr. Bagree, Director, Canopy Projects Pvt. Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - office at DN -37, Salt Lake City, Sector -V, Kolkata - 700 091.,WEST BENGAL.

Mr. Bikash Kr. Dujari, Director, Canopy Projects Pvt. Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - office at DN -37, Salt Lake City, Sector -V, Kolkata - 700 091.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Mr. Pavel Das (Advocate)

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Avik Kumar Das, Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, Soumen Mondal (Advocate)

Avik Kumar Das,Koyeli Mukhopdhyay, Soumen Mondal (Advocate) Avik Kumar Das,Koyeli Mukhopdhyay, Soumen Mondal (Advocate) Avik Kumar Das,Koyeli Mukhopdhyay, Soumen Mondal (Advocate)

DATED: 18/02/2026

ORDER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT

1. The instant Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) was filed with following prayers :

“Hence it is prayed that Your Lordship may be graciously pleased to issue order for refund of Rs.18,22,500/- (Eighteen lakhs twenty-two thousand five hundred) only along with fixed deposits interest at a prevalent rate as above offered by State Bank of India amounting to Rs.29,69,740.32/- (Rupees twenty-nine lakhs sixty nine thousands seven hundred forty and paisa thirty two only) as on 24.03.2019 and continuing till the actual date of payment of the same along with penal interest @18% and sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) for causing mental agony as compensation for undue delay of the possession of the said plot of land and mental agony which the petitioner/complainant had face for such due delay, all to be calculated till the date of actual payment.

And Such other or further order or orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper.”

2. Background facts, in brief, is that on 13/12/2007, one agreement for sale was executed by and between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, for a plot of land being No.560 measuring approximately 04 Cottahs 08 sq.ft. in the name and style of “OLIVE GARDENS” situated at Genragari, J.L.No.37, P.S. Rajarhat, District 24 Parganas (North). The Plot was allotted by reference no.CPPL-OG-387 on the same date. According to agreement, after completion of development, the purchaser would be informed for taking over possession. At the time of agreement, complainant paid Rs.50,000/- by issuing Account Payee Cheque of ABN AMRO Bank dated 05.11.2007.

3. In terms of agreement, petitioner issued two cheques dated 31.05.2008 and 01.01.2009 amounting to Rs.5,60,250/- each in the name of Opposite Party/Canopy Projects Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing the plot of land mentioned in the schedule to the complaint petition. Thereby out of total consideration amount of Rs.20,25,000/- petitioner paid 18,22,500/- in advance.

4. On 29.11.2012, Opposite Party informed complainant through e-mail asking for balance payment for registration of the subject plot of land. Petitioner subsequently sent email addressed to the opposite parties asking for break-up of details of security deposit, tentative timeline of the registration of the plot etc.

5. On 09.11.2017, opposite parties again communicated through email informing that due to “Force majeure”, project got delayed on account of pending process of mutation and conversion of land in compliance with the Order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. From that email communication dated 09.11.2017, petitioner came to know

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 Back to top