West Bengal

StateCommission

RC/113/2009

Multiple Concrete Private Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Asesh Kumar Roy. - Opp.Party(s)

Monali Biswas. Mr. Sajal Biswas.

26 Mar 2010

ORDER


STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , WEST BENGALBHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor), 31 Belvedere Road. Kolkata -700027
RC No. 113 of 2009
1. Multiple Concrete Private Ltd.A Private Ltd. Company, 13, DumDum Road, (K.L. Ghosh Super Market) PS. Dum Dum, Kolkata- 700074. Dist. North 24-Parganas. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Sri Asesh Kumar Roy.S/O Late Paresh Chandra Roy, Flat No. 304, Santosh Apartment, 245/1, Dum Dum Road. Kolkata- 700074, Presently residing at Flat No. 4A, 4th floor, Block-1, Uttarayan, 40, Dum Dum road. Kolkata-700074.2. Sri Brij Gopal Benani.S/O Late Sri Gopal Benani, 11, Sova Ram Basak Street, Kolkata- 700007.3. Sri Ram Gopal Benani.S/O Late Sri Gopal Benani. 11, Sova Ram Basak Street, Kolkata-700007.4. Sri Ghanoshyam Das Benani.S/O Late Sri Gopal Benani, 11, Sova Ram Basak Street, Kolkata- 700007. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Monali Biswas. Mr. Sajal Biswas. , Advocate for
For the Respondent :Mr. Bibhas Mondal. Mr. Tarunjyoti Bandyopadhyay. Mr. Avijit Sarkar. , Advocate

Dated : 26 Mar 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.

No. 8/26.03.2010.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Revision Petitioner through Mr. Sajal Biswas, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. No. 1 through Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, the Ld. Advocate are present.  After hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist – Developer and Respondent No. 1 Complainant we find that the owner Respondents though have been served but have not entered appearance.  The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist – Developer states that his client is agreeable to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant – Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the Deed of Conveyance finalized and agreed to by and between the Complainant and the Developer – O.P. No. 1 and the execution and registration of the Deed has not been possible yet only because non-co-operation of the other O.Ps who are the owners of the property.  As in respect of Deed of Conveyance the same has been finalized between the Complainant and the O.P. No. 1 – Developer and no objection has been raised by other O.Ps, the dispute relating to drafting and finalizing the Deed of Conveyance has since been settled.  Therefore, the impugned order need not stand any further.  We have been told that the present Deed of Conveyance has been prepared by Sri Arun Kr. Bhaumik, the Ld. Advocate who was named in the Agreement as responsible for preparation of the Deed.  The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant on instruction of the Complainant who is present before us agreed to the said Deed of Conveyance as has been modified on his suggestion.  Therefore, the revision is allowed.  The impugned order is set aside and the Forum is directed to complete the formalities in accordance with law for registration of the Deed on the basis of accepted copy of the Deed of Conveyance.  As it appears that the owners of the property who are other O.Ps are not co-operating and not even appearing either before us or before the Forum, the registration may be completed by the Forum in accordance with law exercising its power.  The Revision is thus disposed of as allowed. 

 

The copy of the order be sent down to the Forum forthwith.

 


MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER, MemberHON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT ,