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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2045

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Smt. Maitrayee Roy – Appellant
Versus
Aurobinda Bikash Ghosh & Others – Respondent
SC/19/CC/741/2018



Petitioner Advocates:Payel Mukherjee ,Respondent Advocate: Mr. Amarnath Sanyal, K. Lahiri,Mr. Samir Chattopadhyay,Mr. Samir Chattopadhyay,Mr. Samir Chattopadhyay,Mr. Samir Chattopadhyay

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/19/CC/741/2018

Smt. Maitrayee Roy PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o Sri Deb Kr. Roy, 110, Raja S.C. Mullick Road, Block -B, 3rd Floor,

P.S. - Jadavpur, Kolkata - 700 047.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus

Aurobinda Bikash Ghosh & Others PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Lt. Anil Baran Ghosh, 77, Sreerampur Road(N), P.S. - Jadavpur,

Kolkata - 700 084.,WEST BENGAL.

Sri Paritosh Gupta PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Lt. Anutosh Gupta, 56/6, M.N. Sen Lane, P.S. - Regent Park, Kolkata

- 700 040.,WEST BENGAL.

Sri Debotosh Gupta PRESENT ADDRESS - (O.P no. 03 is expunged vide order dated.16/10/2023) S/o Lt. Anutosh

Gupta, 56/6, M.N. Sen Lane, P.S. - Regent Park, Kolkata - 700 040.,WEST BENGAL.

Smt. Debjani Gupta PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o Lt. Priyathosh Gupta, 56/6, M.N. Sen Lane, P.S. - Regent Park,

Kolkata - 700 040.,WEST BENGAL.

Sri Satandeep Gupta PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Lt. Priyathosh Gupta, 56/6, M.N. Sen Lane, P.S. - Regent Park,

Kolkata - 700 040.,WEST BENGAL.

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

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Payel Mukherjee (Advocate)

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Mr. Amarnath Sanyal, K. Lahiri (Advocate)

Mr. Samir Chattopadhyay (Advocate)

DATED: 23/03/2026

ORDER

##PAGE2##

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant and the Opposite Party Nos.2-5 being land owners of the subject property described in the schedule to the Consumer Complaint, entered into a development agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 on 30.04.2009. One General

Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of the Opposite Party No.1.

2. Pursuant to the terms of the development agreement, the Opposite Party No.1 was entrusted to breathe new life into the subject land, dismantling the aging vestiges of the

past (existing structure) to raise a multistoried building in their stead.

3. Under the terms of the covenant, the land owners shall be granted an equal entitlement to a moiety of the newly erected edifice, with each stakeholder’s interest fixed at a

precise 12.5% share.

4. In terms of agreement, it was specifically stipulated that developers have full right to sell the 12.5% share of the complainant and to pay her the amount i.e., @ Rs.1600/- per Sq.ft. Developer shall complete the construction within 18 months from the date of obtaining sanction of the building plan and/or from the date of vacant possession given by the owners to the developer, whichever is later, otherwise agreement shall be null and

void after expiry of 24 months.

rd

5. According to agreement, Opposite Party No.2 shall get one big flat on the 3 floor, rd Opposite Party No.3 shall get one small flat on the 3 floor and Opposite party no.4 & 5

nd jointly shall get one small flat in the 2 floor. Lastly the complainant shall take

monetary consideration for her 12.5% share @ Rs.1600/- per sq.ft. from the developer.

6. Opposite Party No.1 has handed over allocated portion of other owners i.e., Opposite Party Nos.2-5 and they have been residing at the same building with their families with

all amenities attached therewith.

7. On several occasions, complainant requested the Opposite Party to hand over the

##PAGE3##

allocation of complainant in the said building according to terms and condition of the development agreement but the opposite party with some ulterior motive avoided to hand over the possession to the complainant. In the result, the complainant revoked the general power of attorney dt.24.09.2009 on 23.04.2013. The highhanded arbitrary and malafide acts of the opposite party by not giving the possession of the flat amounts to

deficiency in service u/s 2(O) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. After serving notice through Ld. Advocate on 15.06.2015, complainant filed a case being No.372 of 2015 before the Jurisdictional District Forum and the same was

dismissed for default on 06.06.2018.

9. Deeply aggrieved by the flagrantly malafide conduct of the Opposite Part

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top