Tamil Nadu
North Chennai
208/2013
Mr.N.Senthilvelan,S/o.D.Namasivayam - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s.Sare Jubilee Shelters Private Ltd,Regd office at No.1379,Goldenvilla, - Opp.Party(s)
M/s.V.Balaji
07 Jun 2016
ORDER
Complaint presented on: 29.10.2013
Order pronounced on: 07.06.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
TUESDAY THE 07th DAY OF JUNE 2016
C.C.NO.208/2013
Mr.N.Senthilvelan,
S/o.D.Namasivayam,
No.41B/25, Alagiri Nagar Main Road,
Vadapalani,
Chennai – 600 026.
..... Complainant
..Vs..
1.M/s.Sare Jubilee Shelters Private Limited, Regd. Office at No.1379, Goldenvilla, Chennai – 600 040. Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. VIP Housing & Properties, No.17/1, Mahalinga Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 034. Rep. by its Manager.
|
| |
.....Opposite Parties |
|
Date of complaint 30.10.2013
Counsel for Complainant : M/s. V.Balaji
Counsel for 1st Opposite Party : P.S.Rathinamani
Counsel for 2nd Opposite party : Ex - parte
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
During the year 2011, the Opposite Parties jointly promoted apartments at Thiruporur. The Complainant willing to purchase a Flat No.M-4340, type – 2BHR phase – IV, with super build up area of 1012 sq.ft with UDS measuring 563.61 sq.feet of land. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 25.08.2011, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 01.09.2011 and sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 19.09.2011 and thus the Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance against the total sale consideration. The total cost of the construction including land cost is Rs.28,28,508/-. A sale and construction agreement was entered between the Complainant and the 1st Opposite Party on 30.09.2011. As per the agreement the possession of the flat shall be handed over within 24 months. The land cost of the UDS share comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. As per clause 2.3 of the construction agreement, the sale deed will be executed after receipt of 90% of the total sale consideration. The Complainant is working as a development officer in LIC and he wants to avail LIC housing finance. When the Complainant wanted copies of title deeds for sanction of loan, the 1st Opposite Party informed that he will send the copies of documents directly to the LIC Housing Finance. The LIC found in its legal opinion dated 13.10.2012 that they Will in respect of the property in S.No.228 was not probated, in respect of S.No.229/1,2,3 and No.226/1,2,3 legal heir certificate, power of attorney was not produced and in respect of other survey number General power of attorney and Encumbrance Certificate are not produced. The Complainant sent an e-mail dated 25.01.2013 to the 1st Opposite Party that the legal requirements should be complied with. On 05.02.2013 the Complainant made a specific request either to comply legal requirement or refund the advance with interest. In the meantime the 1st Opposite Party has unilaterally cancelled the agreement and refunded the sum of Rs. 1,82,189/- and have forfeited the sum of Rs.3,17,811/-on account of earnest money. In clause 3(1) of the agreement, it is represented that the 1st Opposite Party is the absolute owner of the property and however as per legal opinion he is not the absolute owner of the property. The acts of the Opposite Parties unilaterally refunded the part amount and falsely representing that they are the owner of the property, is nothing but an unfair trade practice. Therefore, the Complainant filed this Complaint for refund of advance money, with compensation and costs of the Complaint.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The dispute in the Complaint is not a Consumer dispute and as per the agreed terms in clause 19.1 all disputes shall be resolved by mutual discussions or to be referred to arbitration or by a Civil Court and hence this Forum lacks in jurisdiction. The 1st Opposite Party is the owner of the property situated at Tiruporur village measuring an extent of 410400 sq.ft in various survey numbers. The Complainant booked flat bearing no.M4340 in 3rd floor having 1012 super build up area together with 563.61 sq.ft undivided share land with the 1st Opposite Party for a total consideration of Rs.28,28,508/- . The Complainant agreed to pay the said consideration to the 1st Opposite Party in 9 installment in accordance with schedule set forth in the agreement. The Complainant made an application for advance booking for the said flat on 22.08.2011 with related documents and he paid a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as an advance on various dates against total consideration. After payment of 90% of consideration only the sale deed will be executed in respect of UDS. If the purchaser fails to pay a remaining 10% of sale consideration and fails to remedy the breach within the stipulated time, the 1st Opposite Party shall be entitled to terminate the agreement. The 1st Opposite Party informed that they will send the document to LIC Housing Finance directly for their scrutiny and legal opinion are all denied. The FIR copy relating to certain documents which was destroyed due to fire accident was also produced along with the set of documents. The death certificate and the legal certificate have no legal sanctity. The revenue records were transferred in the name of erstwhile owner and also the present land owner after due enquiry by the concerned Tasildhar and Village administrative Officer who is having authority to process and issue the legal heir certificate. As per clause 2.2 of the agreement, if the breach of payment continues beyond two consecutive months, the 1st Opposite Party shall have the right to terminate the agreement in accordance with clause 16 and the 1st Opposite Party shall forfeit 10% of the total sale consideration as earnest money. The 1st Opposite Party assert that the title of the said property is unquestionable and the very fact that several banks and financial institutions advanced loan is itself proof that the Complainant made baseless allegations. The Complainant is not entitled to get refund of the advance with interest, since he has committed breach and paid only two installments out of 9 installments. Therefore the demand of the Complainant to return the advance amount with interest is not sustainable and prays to dismiss the Complaint.
3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether this Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
4. POINT NO:1
The 1st Opposite Party contended that as per clause 19.1 of Ex.A4 agreement for sale & construction all disputes, controversies or differences which may arise between the parties shall be settled by mutual discussion or referred to arbitration and in view of the same the Complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. Section 3 of the CP Act provides an additional remedy to the Consumers apart from the relief can be sort out by him in the any other authority. Accordingly in the case in hand also by virtue of above provision the Complainant filed this Complaint for seeking relief. Further this view has been supported by a judgment of the National Commission reported in 2013 (2) CPR 756 (NC) (DLF Limited and ors. Vs. Mridul Estate (Pvt) Ltd. and ors.) and held that Consumer Fora are not bound to refer dispute to Arbitral Tribunal in terms of valid arbitration clause in the agreement. Therefore, we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint and the objection raised by the Opposite Party is not sustainable.
5. POINT NO:2
The admitted facts are that the Opposite Parties jointly developed apartments at Tiruporur comprising various survey numbers and the Complainant agreed to purchase a flat no.M-4304, type – II BHK phase IV with super buildup area 1012 sq.ft with undivided share land measuring 563.61 sq.ft of land agreed to be sold to the Complainant and accordingly the Complainant gave Ex.B1 application dated 25.08.2011 for advance booking of apartment by paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque and the 1st Opposite Party issued Ex.A1 receipt for the said sum and on 01.09.2011 the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in Ex.A2 receipt and also paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on 19.09.2011 and for the said sum Ex.A3 receipt issued by the 1st Opposite Party and thereafter on 13.09.2011, Ex.A4 agreement for sale and construction was entered between the Complainant and the 1st Opposite Party.
6. The Complainant alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Parties are that the 1st Opposite Party have not furnished the title documents or legal opinion to the LIC Housing Finance, where the Complainant applied for housing loan and even after the Complainant corresponded with the 1st Opposite Party to furnish the legal opinion, he had not furnished the same and on the other hand, he had unilaterally terminated the agreement in respect of booking of the flat and further he had refunded only a sum of Rs.1,82,189/- and forfeited the balance amount on account of earnest money out of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by him .
7. According to the Complainant the 1st Opposite Party handed over certain documents to LIC Housing Finance Limited for perusal and legal opinion and the LIC gave legal opinion that in respect of Survey No.228 the Will registered at the Sub-Register Office, Mylapore was not Probated and in respect of Survey No.229/1 & 2 and 226/1,2 & 3 the death certificate General Power of Attorney Trust Deed were not produced and also encumbrance certificate and therefore the Complainant sought the 1st Opposite Party to furnish the above said document to the LIC for opinion and however the 1st Opposite Party has not furnished till date and in that respect also the 1st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.
8. The 1st Opposite Party would reply that he never sent documents directly to any Housing Finance and he has already handed over all the documents which has been filed on his side to the Complainant and further the 1st Opposite Party is the owner of the property and in the same project one Mrs.G.Radha availed loan from the very same LIC Housing Finance Limited and the same was evidenced in Ex.B46 to Ex.B50 and therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.
9. The Complainant sent Ex.A5 mail dated 20.10.2012 to the 1st Opposite Party requiring him to provide documents to forward to the LIC Housing Finance Limited. For the said letter the 1sr Opposite Party replied in Ex.A6 on the same day that he will send the legal opinion on 24th October for his loan process. Ex.A7 to Ex.A13 is the correspondences between the Complainant and the 1st Opposite Party in respect of the property. The 1st Opposite Party in Ex.A10 dated 30.01.2013 addressed to the Complainant that we will revert on your request in seven working days and also stated in Ex.A12 dated 16.04.2013 that we have some queries received from LIC, will clear the same by tomorrow. The above replies of the Opposite Party categorically states that the Opposite Party will furnish the documents or legal opinion to the Complainant or LIC, enable the Complainant to avail loan from the LIC. However till date the Opposite Party has not furnished the document to the Complainant to avail loan.
10. The 1st Opposite Party would contend that for the very same project one Mrs.G.Radha availed loan from LIC and why not this Complainant. Admittedly till termination letter Ex.A14 issued by the 1st Opposite Party the documents required by the Complainant was not furnished to him. Probably the 1st Opposite Party might have furnished the documents to Mrs.G.Radha as required by her and hence, it is immaterial Mrs.G.Radha availed loan from LIC. Further the 1st Opposite Party himself admitted in Ex.A6, A10, A12 that he will provide legal opinion and however he has not provided the same till date and therefore failure to furnish the documents as required by the Complainant and unilaterally cancelled the agreement is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
11. POINT NO:3
Admittedly the Complainant purchased a flat from the 1st Opposite Party and also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on various dates towards purchase of the flat as advance money as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and these amounts were paid before entering the Ex.A4 Agreement for sale & construction on 13.09.2011. The 1st Opposite Party terminated the agreement under Ex.A4 termination letter on the ground that the Complainant did not pay the installments as per the agreement and therefore the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and as per clause 2.4.2 of the agreement he refunded a sum of Rs.1,82,189/- and forfeited the sum of Rs.3,17,811/- on account of earnest money.
12. The Complainant contended that relying on the judgment of the National Commission reported in I (2015) CPJ 319(NC) (DLF LTD VS. BHAGWANTI NARULA) that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by him before entering agreement is not an earnest money and only such money paid by the party at that time of entering contract (Agreement) considered as a earnest money and therefore the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by him only as a booking amount and further as per the another judgment of the National Commission reported in II (2009) CPJ 344 (NC) (PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI SAINI) even the amount paid was an earnest money it shall be refunded .
13. The National Commission held in I (2015) CPJ 319 (NC) at para 9 & 11 as follows:
After considering several decisions on the subject, the following principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding ‘earnest’
- It must be given at the moment at which the contract is concluded.
- It represents a guarantee that the contract will be fulfilled or, in
other words, ‘earnest’ is given to bind the contract.
- It is part of the purchase price when the transaction is carried out.
- It is forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the
default or failure of the purchase.
- Unless there is anything to the contrary in the terms of the contract,
on default committed by the buyer, the seller is entitled to forfeit the
earnest”.
The above referred principles were reiterated in Satish Batra V.Sudhir Rawal, VIII (2012) SLT 160 =(2013) 1 SCC 345. It would, thus, be seen that only that amount would constitute earnest money which is paid at the time of contract is concluded between the parties. Any payment made before the contract is concluded, cannot be said to be part of the earnest money.
In Bharathi Knitting Company V. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfright Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 25(SC) = (1996) 4SCC 704, the Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the contention that in an appropriate case, the Consumer Forum without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant relief, though, each case depends upon its own facts.
The above judgment of the National Commission clears that the money paid at the time of contract is concluded between the parties is termed as earnest money and not otherwise. In case in hand at the time of concluding the contract in Ex.A4 agreement no money was paid by the Complainant and he has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- very well before Ex.A4 and therefore the payment of above said amount paid by the Complainant cannot be said as earnest money. In II (2009) CPJ 344 (NC) also the National Commission said in para 11 as follows:
In our opinion, if the authority with whom the earnest money has been deposited is itself guilty of lapse/default, the authority cannot with hold the earnest money and deny the same to the party depositing the same who is not at fault and the party cannot be made to suffer solely due to the fault of the concerned authority.
As per the above judgment the authority cannot with hold the earnest money if he is at fault. In case in hand also the 1st Opposite Party is at fault by not providing the required documents by the Complainant to avail the loan and therefore the 1st Opposite Party is bound to refund the amount even if it is earnest money.
14. The 1st Opposite Party relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7588/2012 dated 18.10.2012 (Satish Batra Vs. Sudhir Rawal) and another judgment of Supreme Court dated 13.12.1994 (V.Lakshmanan Vs.B.R.Mangala Giri & ors.) and contended as per those judgments forfeiting the earnest money is justified and therefore the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Supreme Court held in Civil Appeal No.7588/2012 that “Earnest money is paid at the time when the contract is entered into and as a pledge for its due performance by the depositor to be forfeited in case of non performance, by the depositor. The Supreme Court clearly held that the money paid only at the time the contract is entered could be earnest money. In the case in hand at the time of entering contract Ex.A4 agreement no money was paid by the Complainant and therefore the above judgment of the Supreme Court only support the case of the Complainant. The facts of the another judgment above referred is different from the facts of the case in hand and the same is not applicable in the case in hand
15. The 1st Opposite Party relied on various other judgments are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
16. Therefore considering as above, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is not an earnest money and therefore he is entitled for refund of the said amount. Further due to the Deficiency in Service of the Opposite Parties the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted. Therefore it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Deficiency in Service , besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are jointly or severally ordered to refund the forfeited amount of Rs.3,17,811/- (Rupees three lakhs seventeen thousand eight hundred and eleven only) to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)towards compensation for mental agony and Deficiency in Service, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 07th day of June 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated 25.08.2011 Cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-
Ex.A2 dated 01.09.2011 Cheque for Rs.1,50,000/-
Ex.A3 dated 19.09.2011 Cheque for Rs.2,50,000/-
Ex.A4 dated 30.09.2011 Agreement for sale and construction
Ex.A5 dated 20.10.2012 E-mail by Complainant
Ex.A6 dated 20.10.2012 E-mail reply by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A7 dated 28.10.2012 E-mail by Complainant
Ex.A8 dated 17.01.2013 E-mail by Complainant
Ex.A9 dated 25.01.2013 E-mail by Complainant
Ex.A10 dated 30.01.2013 E-mail reply by the first Opposite Party
Ex.A11 dated 05.02.2013 Letter of the Complainant
Ex.A12 dated 16.04.2013 E-mail by the Complainant
Ex.A13 dated 24.04.2013 Final letter by the Complainant
Ex.A14 dated 29.08.2013 Termination letter
Ex.A15 dated 19.09.2013 Advocate Notice
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 dated 25.08.2011 | Application for Advance booking of Apartment |
Ex.B2 dated 30.09.2011 | Agreement for sale and construction entered into between Complainant and first Opposite Party |
Ex.B3 dated 08.09.2011 | Receipt for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- issued by 1st Opposite Party to Complainant |
Ex.B4 dated 08.09.2011 | Receipt for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- issued by 1st Opposite Party to Complainant |
Ex.B5 dated 26.09.2011 | Receipt for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- issued by 1st Opposite Party to Complainant |
Ex.B6 dated 14.03.2013 | Demand Letter sum Service Invoice sent by 1st Opposite Party to Complainant |
Ex.B7 dated 18.04.2013 | Reminder Letter sent by 1st Opposite Party to Complainant |
Ex.B8 dated 29.08.2013 | Termination letter sent by 1st Opposite Party to Complainant |
Ex.B9 dated 17.02.2006 | Layout Approval dated 17.02.2006 issued by Director of Town and country planning |
Ex.B10 dated 22.02.2012 | Building Approval issued by the commissioner of Town and country planning |
Ex.B11 dated 11.06.2012 | Building approval order issued by Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority |
Ex.B12 dated 18.09.2012 | Project Approval issued by HDFC |
Ex.B13 dated 17.10.2012 | Project Approval issued by DHFL |
Ex.B14 dated NIL | Axix Bank – statement of Account |
Ex.B15 dated 19.06.2011 | First Information Report
|
Ex.B16 dated 29.10.2009 | Circular issued by Inspector General of Registration (Revised procedure for Registration of Power of Attorney) |
Ex.B17 dated 02.02.2013 | Circular issued by Inspector General of Registration (Production of Life Certificate) |
Ex.B18 dated NIL | Encumbrance Certificate bearing No.10073/06 for the period 01.01.1970 to 31.12.1986 (Survey Nos. 226/1, 226/2, 223/2) |
Ex.B19 dated 28.09.05 | Encumbrance Certificate bearing No.8504/05 for the period 01.01.1970 to 31.12.1986 (Survey Nos. 222/2B, 227/3B) |
Ex.B20 dated 28.09.05 | Encumbrance Certificate bearing No.8639/05 for the period 01.01.1970 to 31.12.1986 (Survey Nos. 227/3C, 227/4) |
Ex.B21 dated 28.09.05 | Encumbrance Certificate bearing No.8641/05 for the period 01.01.1970 to 31.12.1986 (Survey Nos. 226/3) |
Ex.B22 dated NIL | Encumbrance Certificate bearing No.8453/05 for the period 01.01.1970 to 31.12.1986 (Survey Nos. 222/3) |
Ex.B23 dated 09.02.06 | General Power of Attorney registered as Document No.212/06 executed by Mr.Dilli & 2 others in favour of Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam (Survey Nos.222/2B2, 227/3B) |
Ex.B24 dated 02.02.06 | General Power of Attorney registered as Document No.175/06 executed by Mr.Lakshmanan and others in favour of Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam (Survey Nos.222/2B2, 227/3B) |
Ex.B25 dated 10.02.06 | General Power of Attorney registered as Document No.219/06 executed by Mr.Nandagopal and 3 others in favour of Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam (Survey Nos.222/2B2 ) |
Ex.B26 dated 14.02.06 | Sale deed registered as Document No.1420/06 executed by Mr.Dilli, Mr.Lakshmanan, Mr.Nandagopal & others in favour of Jubilee Plot & Housing Pvt.Ltd. (Survey Nos. 222/2B2, 227/3B) |
Ex.B27 dated 17.02.92 | General Power of Attorney registered as Document No.36/92 executed by Mr.Venkitturathinam and 5 others (Legalheirs of Mrsa.Rajeswari Ammal) in favour of Mr.Sarasagopal (Survey No.229/2) |
Ex.B28 dated 12.11.04 | Sale deed registered as Document No.5021/04 executed by Mr.Venkitturathinam and 5 others in favour of Mrs.K.Jayakumari (Survey No.229/2) |
Ex.B29 dated 31.01.91 | General Power of Attorney registered as Document No.28/91 executed by Mr.T.M.Kandasamy and 2 others (Legaltheirs of Munusamy Chettiar) in favour of Mr.Sarasagopal (Survey No.229/1) |
Ex.B30 dated 12.11.04
| Sale deed registered as Document No.5022/04 executed by Mr.T.M.Kandasamy and 2 others in favour of Mrs.K.Jayakumari (Survey No.229/1) |
Ex.B31 dated 13.11.06 | Sale deed registered as Document No.9854/06 executed by Mrs.K.Jayakumari in favour of Jubilee Plot & Housing Pvt.Ltd. (Survey No.229/2) |
Ex.B32 dated 28.10.02 | General Power of Attorney registered as Document No.397/02 executed by Mr.Rahothaman and 6 others in favour of Mr.Rutheesh (Survey No.223/2) |
Ex.B33 dated 12.09.03 | Sale deed registered as Document No.2494/03 executed by Mr.Rahothaman and 6 others in favour of Amma Educational Trust (Survey No.223/2) |
Ex.B34 dated 05.09.05 | Sale deed registered as Document No.5845/05 executed by Amma Educational Trust in favour of Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam (Survey No.223/2) |
Ex.B35 dated 19.07.91 | General Power of Attorney registered as Document No.199/91 executed by Mrs.Govindammal and 8 others (Legal Heirs of Late Madurai) in favour of Mr.Sarasagopal (Survey No.226/3) |
Ex.B36 dated 30.10.02 | Sale deed registered as Document No.2795/02 executed by Mrs.Govidndammal and 8 others in favour of Mr.Pon Saravanan (Survey No.226/3) |
Ex.B37 dated 30.01.06 | General Power of Attorney registered as Document No.175/06 executed by Mr.Pon Saravanan in favour of Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam (Survey No.226/3) |
Ex.B38 dated 06.02.06 | Sale deed registered as Document No.1426/06 executed by Mr.Pon Saravanan in favour of Jubilee Pot & Housing Pvt.Ltd (Survey No.226/3) |
Ex.B39 dated 27.05.93 | Sale deed registered as Document No.466/94 executed by Ms.Ambikavathy Ammal & 7 others (Legal heirs of Mr.Umapathy) in favour of Mr.Sivakumar (Survey No.226/1 & 226/2) |
Ex.B40 Dated 29.08.02 | Amma Educational Trust Deed registered as Document No. 522/02 executed by Mrs.Malathy |
Ex.B41 dated 01.03.2005 | Board Resolution passed by Amma Educational Trust |
Ex.B42 dated NIL | Patta bearing No.280 stands in the name of Jubilee plot & Housing Pvt.Ltd |
Ex.B43 dated NIL | Patta bearing No.266 stands in the name of Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam |
Ex.B44 dated NIL | Patta bearing No.317 stands in the name of sare Jubilee Shelters Pvt.Ltd., Jubilee plot & Housing Pvt.Ltd. Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam |
Ex.B45 dated 28.12.07 | Sale deed registered as Document No.11625/07 executed by Jubilee Plot & Housing Pvt.Ltd. Mr.R.P.Darrmalingam and others in favour of sare Jubilee Shelters Pvt. Ltd. |
Ex.B46 dated 08.02.2013 | Loan Sanction letter of Mrs.G.Radha |
Ex.B47 dated 30.03.2013 | Loan Disbursement Letter of Mrs.G.Radha issued by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. |
Ex.B48 dated 30.03.2013 | Loan disbursement cheque of Mrs.G.Radha issued in favour of Mrs.G.Radha |
Ex.B49 dated 10.05.2012 | Agreement for Sale and Construction entered into between First Opposite Party and Mrs. G.Radha |
Ex.B50 dated 10.12.2014 | Sale deed executed by First Opposite Party in favour of Mrs.G.Radha |
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly 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.