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

 
First Appeal No. FA/412/2013
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )
 
1. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal
Chd.
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.

:

412 of 2013

Date of Institution

:

20.09.2013

Date of Decision

:

15.10.2013

 

Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, s/o Late Sh. D.S. Sabharwal, 100, Lakhi Nagar, Club Road, Jorhat, Assam 785001

 

……Appellant/Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party

 

V e r s u s

 

Mr.Tarlochan Singh s/o Sh.Dhian Singh, R/o H.No.1330-A, Sector 68, Mohali, Punjab

             

 ....Respondent/Decree Holder/complainant

Appeal under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Sh. Rohit Sapra, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), in Criminal Petition No.36 of 2011, titled as Mr. Tarlochan Singh Vs. M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, vide which, Mr. Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director of the Opposite Party, was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment whereof, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the Consumer Complaint bearing No.513 of 2010, was filed by Mr. Tarlochan Singh, Decree Holder/complainant, on the allegations that the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, floated a scheme, under the name and style “Cresent Apartments” at Baddi(HP), with a proposal to develop apartments, on the total land, comprising Khasra No.652/475, Khewat/Khatouni No.61/70, situated in Village Saner, Hadbast No.161, P.O. Manpura, Prg. Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. Attracted by the advertisements, in leading newspapers, giving rosy pictures, that the project had been duly approved by the Himachal Pradesh Govt., the complainant, alongwith his family, visited the site, and deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/-, with the Opposite Party, vide receipt No.350 dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure C-3). Another amount of Rs.2 lacs, as part price of the said apartment, was paid by the complainant, on 07.08.2006. In all, an amount of Rs.2.25 lacs, was paid by the complainant, towards  part price of the said apartment. The total price of apartment, booked by the complainant, consisting of three bed rooms drawing/dining, kitchen and toilets, ground floor, was fixed at Rs.14.50 lacs, which included sanitary, electrical fittings etc. Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 04.08.2006,was executed between the parties, at Chandigarh. According to Clause No.14 of the said Agreement, the builder was to complete the project, within 2 years, from the start of construction. Even after the lapse of two years, the time stipulated, in the said Agreement, no progress was made to complete the construction of apartment, despite the fact that the complainant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

3.              In the middle of June, 2009, the complainant visited the site, and found the office of the Opposite Party locked. It came to the knowledge of the complainant that Mr.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Managing Director/Director of M/s J.S. Dwellers Pvt. Limited, Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party, had been arrested by the Chandigarh Police, in a cheating case.  It was stated that neither the construction of apartment, was completed by the Opposite Party, nor the question of delivery of possession thereof could arise, nor the refund of  amount deposited by the complainant was made to him, despite various requests. It was further s



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