NARENDRA K SODHI Vs. NANDINI N JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is basic principle of jurisprudence that when any litigant approaches the judicial forum by concealing the material facts, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. Similar is the situation in the above noted present revision petitions.

(2.) Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short as 'State Commission') vide its order dated 6.7.2010, dismissed the twenty appeals filed by the petitioner/opposite party. The impugned order of the State Commission reads as under ;

(3.) Respondents/complainants have filed twenty complaints against the petitioner, who is builder, on the ground that respondents are in possession of their various respective flats after having paid the consideration amount to the petitioner as per agreements made between the parties. However, petitioner did not issue a permanent possession letter to occupation certificate to the flat purchasers. Petitioner after having received the consideration amount has failed to comply with the conditions mentioned in the Registered Agreement in its clause of amenities.