Delhi

StateCommission

FA/30/2014

UNIMEX BUILDERS & DEVELOPER(P). LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHASHANK SRIVASTAVA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jul 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/30/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 21/11/2013 in Case No. 230/2013 of District New Delhi)
 
1. UNIMEX BUILDERS & DEVELOPER(P). LTD. & ANR.
301, SURYA MANSION BUILDING, KAUSHALYA PARK, HAUZ KHAS ,NEW DELHI 110016
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHASHANK SRIVASTAVA & ANR.
R/O U-16, GROUND FLOOR GREEN PARK MAIN, NEW DELHI 110016
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

 

                       Date of Decision:   18.07.2014

                                                            

First Appeal No. - 30/2014

(Arising from the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by District Forum-VII in Complaint Case No. 230/2013)

 

Unimaxx Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 301, Surya Mansion Building, Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

Through its Managing Director

Shri Amit Khanna

 

 

 

 

            

 

…………… Appellants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vs

 

1.Sh. Shashank Srivastava

   S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar

 

2.Sh. Krishan Kumar,

   S/o Late Sh. Sunder Lal,

   Both R/o U-16, Ground Floor,

   Green Park Main,

   New Delhi-110016.

 

3.M/s. Ansal Buildwell

   Medows Arun Hills,

   Pacific,

   115, Ansal Bhawan,

   16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

   New Delhi-110001.

   Through its Director /     

 

 

   Authorized Signatory

 

 ……….. Respondents

 

 

 

 

Coram

SalmaNoor,PresidingMember

 

N P Kaushik,Member(Judicial)

 

 

 

1.

Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)  

    
                                          

 

  1. We have heard Shri S. K. Singh, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Krishna Kumar, Counsel for the Respondents, who is incidentally an Advocate.
  2. Costs of Rs. 1,000/- directed to be paid to the Respondent by the Appellant within a period of one month have not been paid.  Ld. Counsel for the Appellant states that he wishes to pay the said costs today.  On the contrary, Respondent states that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed subject to the condition that the costs of Rs. 1,000/- are to be paid within a period of one month.  It was specifically mentioned in the order that failing payment of costs within the stipulated period, the order shall stand automatically vacated.  We agree with the contention put forth by the Respondent.  Appellant since failed to comply with the orders, appeal is to be treated as filed beyond the period of limitation.  The same is hence dismissed.
  3. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
  4. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
MEMBER

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.