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

Udai Kumar vs Taneja Developers And Infrastrucure on 28 March, 2022

     STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                 HARYANA, PANCHKULA


                                  Complaint No.779 of 2017
                                  Date of Institution: 05.12.2017
                                  Date of Decision: 28.03.2022


Udai Kumar son of Shri M. Laxminarayana Bhat, resident of B-5/95,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
                                                 ....Complainant

                               Versus

1.    M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited, 9, Kasturba
      Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

2.    Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New
      Delhi-110001 through its MD Shri Ravinder Taneja.
                                                 ....Opposite Parties


CORAM:     Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.
           Ms. Manjula, Member.

Present: Ms. Megha Gupta, proxy counsel for Shri O.P. Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

Particulars of opposite party No.1 already deleted from the array of parties Shri Shubham Jain, counsel for opposite party No.2.

ORDER T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL) Complainant-Udai Kumar has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby he has sought directions to the opposite parties to allot the plot measuring 250 square yards in the name of the complainant and get the same registered and to pay the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of C.C. No.779 of 2017 Udai Kumar Versus M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd 2 filing the present complaint till the possession of the plot is handed over with cost as well as compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. Upon notice, contesting opposite party No.2 has put in appearance and filed written version and now the complaint is pending for recording evidence of the complainant.

3. Proxy counsel for the complainant states that during the pendency of the complaint, the matter between the parties has been amicably settled and as such, he be allowed to withdraw the complaint.

4. Counsel for opposite party No.2 confirms the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and states that counsel for the complainant may be allowed to withdraw the complaint.

5. In view of the above, the complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.




March 28, 2022             (Manjula)                  (T.P.S. Mann)
UK
                           Member                     President