Skip to content


Satnam Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. M/S. Saranga Estate Pvt. Ltd., Khar, Mumbai and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided On

Case Number

Misc. Appl. No.289 of 2009 (In Consumer Complaint No.27 of 2009)

Judge

Appellant

Satnam Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai

Respondent

M/S. Saranga Estate Pvt. Ltd., Khar, Mumbai and Another

Advocates:

Mr. Dayanandan N.K., Advocate for the Complainants.

Excerpt:


oral order:- per shri s.r. khanzode, honble presiding judicial member we heard mr.dayanandan n.k., advocate for the complainants. there is inordinate delay of 3 years 2 months in filing this consumer complaint. the ground mentioned as per para 3 is that all the while they tried to compromise with the builder and therefore delay is caused. reason given is quite unsatisfactory. we are therefore of the view that application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. we make it clear at this point that if any regular remedy is available either with the civil court or elsewhere, the complainant may pursue the same. we hold accordingly and pass the following order:- order: 1. misc. appl. no.289/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. consequently, complaint is not entertainable as barred by limitation. 3. copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Judgment:


Oral Order:-

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member

We heard Mr.Dayanandan N.K., Advocate for the complainants.

There is inordinate delay of 3 years 2 months in filing this consumer complaint. The ground mentioned as per Para 3 is that all the while they tried to compromise with the builder and therefore delay is caused. Reason given is quite unsatisfactory. We are therefore of the view that application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. We make it clear at this point that if any regular remedy is available either with the Civil Court or elsewhere, the complainant may pursue the same. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

Order:

1. Misc. Appl. No.289/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

2. Consequently, complaint is not entertainable as barred by limitation.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //