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) 2394

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AJIT RAGHUNATH WAINGANKAR – Appellant
Versus
SOHAM DEVELOPERS THROUGH PARTNER MR.SANTOSH B.MANDHARE AND ORS – Respondent
SC/27/CC/660/2019



Petitioner Advocates:ADV.S.THAKUR ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. SC/27/CC/19/660 Ajit Raghunath Waingankar Age 50 years, An adult, Occupation-Service, Indian Inhabitant, having his residential address at Room No.6, Yashoda Smruti Chawl, Sai Hill, T.P. Road, Bhandup (west), Mumbai. …… Complainant Versus

1. Soham Developers Office Address:

Shop No.1, Vijay Nivas, Jangal Mangal Road, Bhandup (East), Mumbai – 400078.

2. Santosh Babanrao Mandhare Partners of Soham Developers, Office Address:

Shop No.1, Vijay Nivas, Jangal Mangal Road, Bhandup (East), Mumbai – 400078. Residence Address:

B-601, Vakratund Place Co.Operative Housing Society, Tank Road, Bhandup (west), Mumbai – 400 078.

Native Place Address:

Gat No.1052, Bagad Road, Wai Pachwad Road, Bavdhan, Taluka – Wai, District- Satara, Maharashtra – 412 804.

3. Megha Santosh Mandhare Partner of Soham Developers, Office Address:

Jangal Mangal Road, Bhandup (East), Mumbai – 400078. Residence Address:

B-601, Vakratund Place Co.Operative Housing Society, Tank Road, Bhandup (west), Mumbai – 400 078.

Native Place Address:

Gat No.1052, Bagad Road, Wai Pachwad Road, Bavdhan, Taluka – Wai, District- Satara, Maharashtra – 412 804. ..… Opposite Parties BEFORE:

Hon’ble, Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainant: Advocate Santosh Thakur Advocate Dharmendra Tiwari For Opposite Party: Advocate Ajit V. Mandlik

JUDGMENT

(Date: 06-03-2026)

Per: Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Presiding Member.

1. The present Consumer Complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice .The Opposite Party No.1 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and development of buildings, and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are its partners.

2. The Complainant submits that during February 2015 the Opposite Parties represented that they were one of the developers of Marathawadi SRA Co-operative Housing Society situated at Subhash Road, Janta Market, Bhandup (West), Mumbai, and that Opposite party No.1 had 10 Flats available for sale in the said project. Being in need of a residential flat, the Complainant agreed to purchase a 1 BHK flat No. 307 on 3rd floor , C wing in a society known as MARATHAWADI SRA Co operative housing society situated at subhash Road ,Janta Market , Bhandup (W) and thereafter one week later shown flat no.507 on 5th floor , C wing in the same society on the ground that two days before another buyer had already booked the said flat.After relying upon the assurances and representations made by the Opposite Parties. The complainant had booked a flat no. 507 on 5th floor , C wing in a society known as MARATHAWADI SRA Co operative housing society situated at subhash Road ,Janta Market , Bhandup (W).

3. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties issued a quotation dated 17.03.2015 fixing the total consideration of the flat at Rs.29,23,200/-. As per the terms of the quotation, the Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.11,59,200/- towards part consideration, which included Rs.7,56,000/- through cheques, Rs.2,52,000/- in cash for other charges, and Rs.1,51,200/- towards stamp duty and registration charges. The Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that they would arrange housing loan for the remaining amount and thereafter execute the Agreement for Sale.

4. However, despite receiving the said amount and documents required for housing loan processing, the Opposite Parties failed to execute the Agreement for Sale and did not hand over possession of the flat as promised. The Complainant repeatedly approached the Opposite Parties seeking clarification regarding the loan and possession, but the Opposite Parties kept giving false assurances and avoided their contractual obligations.

5. The Complainant further states that after persistent demands, the Opposite Parties issued a cheque of Rs.7,56,000/- towards refund, but the same was dishonoured due to ins

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