Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/11/675

SHRI VIKRAM JAYSINGH PATIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI SANDEEP BHARAT PAWAR - Opp.Party(s)

PRATAP V PATIL

19 Dec 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/11/675
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/10/2009 in Case No. 82/2009 of District Raigarh)
 
1. SHRI VIKRAM JAYSINGH PATIL
M/S HANSRAJ BUILDERS & DEV HVING OFFICE AT 204 MAYURESH COSMOS PLOT NO 37 SECTOR -11 CBD BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI SANDEEP BHARAT PAWAR
FLAT NO 101 HANSRAJ APARTMENT PLOT NO B-48 SECTOR -23 DARAVE NERUL NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
2. SHRI ARJUN SHRIPATI SHINGADE
FLAT NO 102 & SHOP NO 201 HANSRAJ APARTMENT PLOT NO B-48 SECTOR -23 DARAVE NERUL NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
3. SHRI NARAYAN PANDHARINATH SAWANT
FLAT NO 201 HANSRAJ APARTMENT PLOT NO B-48 SECTOR -23 DARAVE NERUL NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
4. SHRI VASANT NILOBA PADAVAL
FLAT NO 202 HANSRAJ APARTMENT PLOT NO B-48 SECTOR -23 DARAVE NERUL NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
5. SHRI VASANT GENU JADHAV
FLAT NO 301 HANSRAJ APARTMENT PLOT NO B-48 SECTOR -23 DARAVE NERUL NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
6. SHRI DNYNESHWAR DEWAN MANDALE
FLAT NO 302 HANSRAJ APARTMENT PLOT NO B-48 SECTOR -23 DARAVE NERUL NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
7. SHRI PANDURANG TUKARAM NALAWADE
FLAT NO 401 HANSRAJ APARTMENT PLOT NO B-48 SECTOR -23 DARAVE NERUL NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
8. SHRI YOGESH MADHUKAR PARAB
SHOP NO 1 HANSRAJ APARTMENT PLOT NO B-48 SECTOR -23 DARAVE NERUL NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
NAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
 
PRESENT:PRATAP V PATIL, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
ORDER

Per Mr. P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Judicial Member :

 

          Heard Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for appellant and Mr. V.B. Sharma, Advocate for respondent.  Mr. Sharma Files Vakalatnama.  In this case, in filling appeal, there is delay of 109 days.  So as to avoid execution of conveyance deed in favour of the flat purchasers’ society, he filed this appeal belatedly after the appellant is threatened action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. No sufficient case is made out to justify delay of 109 days.

          In the circumstances, delay condonation application stands rejected.  Appeal does not survive for consideration.  Inform the parties accordingly.

 

Pronounced dated 19th December 2011.

 

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
Judicial Member
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde]
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.