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 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

1. Jigar R. Patel 2. Ushaben Patel 3. ... vs 1. M/S. Sterling Engineers 2. M/S. ... on 16 April, 2004

  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 







 



 

  

 

 To be reported:Yes/No 

 

BEFORE
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

    GUJARAT   STATE , AHMEDABAD 

 

  

 

1.  Appeal
No. 106 of 2000 

 

  

 

1.
Jigar R. Patel 

 

2.
Ushaben Patel 

 

3.
Parag R. Patel 

 

  

 

All
Res. at 9, Arpan Society 

 

Naranpura 

 

Ahmedabad
380 013 Appellants 

 

  

 

 versus 

 

  

 

1.
M/s.  Sterling Engineers 

 

Sun Rise Shopping Centre 

 

Opp. Drive-in Cinema 

 

Ahmedabad 380 054 

 

  

 

2.
M/s. Sterling Enterprise Ltd. 

 

  Sun  Rise
  Park 

 

Drive-in Road 

 

Ahmedabad 380 054 Respondents 

 

  

 

2.  Appeal
No. 115 of 2000 

 

  

 

1.
M/s.  Sterling Engineers 

 

2.
Sterling Enterprises Ltd. 

 

  

 

Both
of   Sunrise
Shopping Centre 

 

Opp.
Drive-in Cinema 

 

Ahmedabad
380 054 Appellants 

 

  

 

 versus 

 

  

 

1.
Jigar R. Patel 

 

2.
Ushaben Patel 

 

3.
Parag R. Patel 

 

  

 

All
Res. at 9, Arpan Society 

 

Naranpura 

 

Ahmedabad
380 013 Respondents 

 

  

 

  

   

 

BEFORE: 

 

  

 

 Justice M.S. Parikh,
President 

 

 Dr. M.K. Joshi, Member 

 

 Smt. Leenaben Desai, Member 

 

  

 

  

 

Appearance: 

 

  

 

 Ms. L.K. Bhaya, Advocate for
the original complainants 

 

  

 

  

 

ORAL
ORDER:

[By Justice M.S. Parikh, President] [Date: April 16, 2004]     Both these appeals arise from order dated 17.4.2000 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 41 of 1994. Appeal No. 106/2000 has been filed by the original complainants and Appeal No. 115 of 2000 has been filed by the original opponents. We have heard the learned advocates for the original complainants. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal in Appeal No. 115 of 2000. Impugned order would read as under:

 
"The relief of the complainant regarding the allotment of the plots is hereby rejected. However, the opponents are directed to return the amount of deposit forfeited by them with interest at 12% from the date of deposit till the realisation. Rest of the relief of complainant are hereby rejected.
 
However, both the parties are at liberty to get their relief from Civil Court and if they file any civil suit in Civil Court within one month from the date of judgment will not suffer by the law of limitation and this order passed by this Forum will be subject to the decision of the Civil Court. No order as cost, parties bear their own cost."
 

2 It would appear from the facts narrated in the impugned order as well as the submissions made on behalf of the complainants that there was an agreement for allotment of plots of land to the complainants as per the detailed terms and conditions set out in the memorandum of appeal. Plot No. A/18 was to be allotted to the complainant no.1 for consideration of Rs.40,000/-, Plot No. C/33 was to be allotted to complainant no.2 for consideration of Rs.57,000/- and plot No. A/42 was to be allotted to complainant no.3 for Rs.52,000/-. It was the case of the complainants that the opponents did not have NOC/NA certificate so that they can allot plots to the respective complainants. It was the case of the opponents that there was default on the part of the complainant in making payment of instalments as narrated in the agreement. The learned Forum has appreciated all the facts and has come to the conclusion that this was a fit case for the parties to take before the Civil Court particularly when there was an agreement for purchase and sale of immovable property in the form of plots of land.

Further, the action of the opponents in forfeiting the amount of deposit was not endorsed by the learned Forum, who has directed return of deposits forfeited by the opponents with interest @ 12% . In our considered opinion, order of the learned Forum cannot be faulted either on facts or in law. It is not in dispute that the agreement is in writing. It is also not in dispute that it was for purchase and sale of plots of land. Hence, a relief for specific performance of such an agreement would be a matter to be agitated before a Civil Court under the relevant provisions of Specific Relief Act. Hence, bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we pass following order.

 

O R D E R   Both these appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

[M.S. Parikh] President     [Dr. M.K. Joshi] [Leenaben Desai] Member Member