NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1288/2010

M/S. VIVEK CONSTRUCTION - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKSHADA MOHAN BANDIVADEKAR - Opp.Party(s)

MR. AJIT S. BHASME

14 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1288 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 30/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1438/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. M/S. VIVEK CONSTRUCTIONThrough its Proprietor, Suchita Enclave, Maharashtra Nagar, Borivali WestMumbai - 400092Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. AKSHADA MOHAN BANDIVADEKARDarpan B-15, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W)Mumbai - 400058Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. AJIT S. BHASME
For the Respondent :MR. AJAY MAJITHIA

Dated : 14 Sep 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Mr. Ajit S. Bhasme, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner has issued the requisite ‘No Objection -2- Certificate’ to the respondent, which will entitle him to become a member of Om Sadguru Co-op Housing Society formed by the occupants of the flats. In regard to the proceedings before the Mumbai High Court, it is urged that the same are still pending. However, under instructions of the petitioner, he states that the said proceedings before the Mumbai High Court will be taken to its logical conclusion and depending upon the outcome of the same or any further legal proceeding as and when the petitioner gets the occupancy certificate from Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation, the same will be handed over to the respondent and other similarly situated persons. Since the revision petition was admitted only qua the direction contained in direction No. 5 of the impugned order, the above statement of learned counsel shall hold good viz-à-viz the said direction of the State Commission. The direction No. 5 of the impugned order is accordingly set aside in terms of the said statement. However, all other directions shall be complied with by the petitioner/builder within four weeks from today. The -3- respondent is also awarded cost of Rs.10,000/- in these proceedings. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.



......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER