NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1589/2009

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATYA NARAYAN KAST - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & PURUSHOTTAM S.T

26 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 05 May 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1589/2009
(Against the Order dated 15/09/2008 in Appeal No. 731/2003 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARDThrough Secretary Rajasthan Housing Board Head Office Jyoti Nagar JaipurRajasthan ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SATYA NARAYAN KASTD/o. Dinesh Garg 192, Pratap Nagar Extensing Murlipura JaipurRajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA & PURUSHOTTAM S.T
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 26 Oct 2009
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.

          Possession was not given to the respondent/complainant because of litigation pending between the petitioner and the contractor.  When the litigation ended, petitioner delivered the possession subject to deposit of additional amount which was by way of interest.  The foras below have held that the petitioner would be entitled to charge interest as per the Agreement but it has to pay

-2-

interest at the same rate to the respondent whose money was lying deposited with the petitioner.  Order passed by the foras below is equitable and just.  No interference is called for in the impugned order.  Dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER