Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gayatri Gupta Vs. Palaseem Developers (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Gayatri Gupta vs Palaseem Developers (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi Decided Jan 15, 2008
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1112026

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Appeal No. 832 of 07
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(1)(d) - Comparative Citation: 2008 (2) CPJ 78

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gayatri Gupta

Respondent

Palaseem Developers (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 14(1)(d) - comparative citation: 2008 (2) cpj 78mr. justice j.d. kapoor, president (oral): 1. limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 18.9.2007, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of late delivery and possession of the shop was dismissed is that the district forum has not at all taken into consideration the actual facts. according to the counsel for the appellant the entire payment of consideration for the shop allotted to the appellant was made on september 2004 and the sale deed was also executed in september 2004, wherein it was mentioned that the possession of the shop has been given to the appellant but in actuality the possession was given on the intervention of the district forum in january 2007 and therefore the district forum has not granted any compensation by way of interest of otherwise by taking view that the possession of the shop has already been given in september 2004. 2. aforesaid facts persuade us to allow the appeal at the outset, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the district forum for deciding it afresh after considering the aforesaid factual discrepancies occurred in the order. 3. the appellant shall appear before district forum on 18.2.2008 for the aforesaid purpose. 4. a copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned district forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. appeal allowed.

Full Judgment

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral):

1. Limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 18.9.2007, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of late delivery and possession of the shop was dismissed is that the District Forum has not at all taken into consideration the actual facts. According to the Counsel for the appellant the entire payment of consideration for the shop allotted to the appellant was made on September 2004 and the sale deed was also executed in September 2004, wherein it was mentioned that the possession of the shop has been given to the appellant but in actuality the possession was given on the intervention of the District Forum in January 2007 and therefore the District Forum has not granted any compensation by way of interest of otherwise by taking view that the possession of the shop has already been given in September 2004.

2. Aforesaid facts persuade us to allow the appeal at the outset, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh after considering the aforesaid factual discrepancies occurred in the order.

3. The appellant shall appear before District Forum on 18.2.2008 for the aforesaid purpose.

4. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Appeal allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial