Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Madhu Rathour vs South Delhi University Teachers' ... on 20 January, 2014

2
ITEM NO.63                   COURT NO.11             SECTION XVII


              S U P R E M E     C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13242/2013

(From the judgement and order dated 16/10/2012 in FA No.128/2006 of The
NATIONAL CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI)

MADHU RATHOUR                                         Petitioner(s)

                   VERSUS

SOUTH DELHI UNIVERSITY TEACHERS’ CO-OPER              Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and office
report)

Date: 20/01/2014    This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
          HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA

For Petitioner(s)           Mr. Praneet Ranjan, Adv.
                            Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
                            Mr. S.P. Singh Rathour, Adv.

For Respondent(s)         Mr. Abir Phukan, Adv.
                          Mr. P. Nagesh, Adv.
                          Mr. Raijith Mark, Adv.
                       Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya,Adv.

             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R

Having heard counsel for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner’s claim of compensation for deficiency of service alleged against the respondent and enhancement of amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is not sustainable as it has been explained on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner did not pay the instalments on the due date towards the cost of the flat and yet the possession of the flat was given to him. Therefore, the claim of higher compensation in spite of the lapse on the part of the petitioner is not sustainable.

We find substance in the aforesaid plea of the respondent; hence the special leave petition is dismissed.

           (NAVEEN KUMAR)                         (S.S.R. KRISHNA)
            COURT MASTER                                COURT MASTER