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) 1876

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SHRI.UTTAM CHATTERJEE AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
SHREENIWAS COTTON MILLS LTD.AND ORS – Respondent
SC/27/CC/233/2021



Petitioner Advocates:ADV.M.SAMPAT ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/233/2021

1. Shri. Uttam Chatterjee

2. Smt. Anindita Chatterjee Both 1 and 2 above having address at 1601 A, Lokhandawala Residency, Off.Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018. …. Complainants Versus

1. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd., having one address at 412, Floor-4, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai 400001, and having another address at Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011.

2. Lodha Developers Ltd., having alias address at Lodha Excelus, Level 1, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011, and having Another address at Lodha Pavilion, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011.

3. Jawala Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., having address at Lodha Excelus, Level 1, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400011.

4. Macrotech Developers Ltd., having address at 412, Floor – 4, 17G, Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. ….. Opposite Parties BEFORE:

Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Presiding Member Hon’ble Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainant: Advocate Dharmin V. Sampat For Opposite Party: Advocate Nitin Waghmare

JUDGMENT

(Date: 13-03-2026)

Per: Hon’ble Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member

1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/233/2021 is filed under S.47 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019. (The ‘C.P. Act’

for short) by the complainants against Opponents.

2. The brief facts of the case of complainants that they are flat purchasers who are retired senior citizens and have used the money from their provident fund earned after their retirement. Opponent No. 1 is the entity who has issued several receipts to the Complainants, and has issued Allotment Letter. Opponent No. 2 is the entity who have been dealing and communicating with the Complainants. Opponent No. 3 is the entity who has issued several receipts to the Complainants, and has issued Application Letter and Allotment Letter. Opponent No. 4 is mentioned as the Promoter and has registered the project on Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority's website.

3. The case of Complainant that they approached the opponents for booking a flat in the year 2015, for their residence. For that he booked a 3-BHK Flat No. 4002 (of 2015 sq. ft.) in the "West Wing- 2" in the building "World Crest" in the project named "World Towers" of the Opposite Party No. 2 at Lower Parel, Mumbai, along with two 4-wheeler parking, by making payment of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The total consideration for the flat was Rs. 12,22,22,160/- exclusive of maintenance, stamp duty and other charges and Rs. 13,92,74,963/- The possession was to be delivered in December, 2015 as per oral submission. However, the Allotment letter failed to mention any possession date.

4. Complainants stated that they had booked the flat under a "20:80" payment scheme as a special offer during "Akshay Trithiya", and said scheme was confirmed by a representative of Opposite Party No. 2, namely Mr. Kingshuk Mazumdar in an e- mail dated 06/10/2016. Complainants would be able to take possession only after due notice and opportunity to them to sell their existing flats for booking with Opposite Party No. 2. Specifically, the Complainants would finance latter 80% of the total consideration after selling off their existing accommodations in order to raise funds.

5. Complainants stated that he received "Allotment Letter" on dated 19/05/2015 for the First Flat. Till date, there was no communication from Opposite Party No. 2 on status of construction, as well about delivery of the flat. In fact when complainants inquired about date of delivery/possession, the representative of Opposite Party No. 2, requested for 3 months more time and promised to deliver the same by March 2016.

6. Complainants further stated that opponents did not give the possession in time th

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