NCDRC_ failure to deliver possession gives rise to recurrent cause of action
4. The learned counsel for the opposite party states that the complaint is barred by limitation having filed in August, 2015. However, there is no merit in the contention since the failure to deliver possession of the bungalow gave rise to recurrent cause of action to the complainant as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Meerut Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, in SLP (C) CC No.8481 of 2012, decided on 09.5.2012.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION |
NEW DELHI |
|
|
CONSUMER CASE NO. 683 OF 2015 |
|
1. SADHANA & 2 ORS. |
"MARK HAVEN" GROUND FLOOR, 12, APOLLO BUNDER, |
MUMBAI-400039, MAHARASHTRA |
| ...........Complainant(s) |
Versus | |
1. SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED & 9 ORS. |
(REP. BY AUTHRIZED SIGNATORY SHRI ANUJ KUMAR DWIVEDI) SAHARA INDIA CENTRE, 2, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, |
LUCKNOW-226024 |
2. KETUBH CITY HOMES MAU PRIVATE LIMITED |
(REP. BY ITS AUTHRIZED PERSON SHREE PANKAJ) SAHARA INDIA BHAWAN, 1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, |
LUCKNOW-226024 |
| ...........Opp.Party(s) |
Dated : 02 Jun 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment