ARIISTO DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & 3 ORS ; HIREN NARENDRA PATEL; BHAVESH PALAN; ATITHI NAREDRA PATEL Vs. CHANDRAKANT NAGJI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this First Appeal, by a Real Estate Developer and its three Directors, is to the order dated 06.07.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 614 of 2017. By the impugned order, while keeping open the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, based on the prayer made by the Respondent/Complainant for allotment of an alternative flat, the State Commission has admitted the Complaint for adjudication.

(2.) Although, in the impugned order, there is no reference to any other objection, which is now sought to be urged before us in this Appeal, namely, the Complaint is barred by limitation and the offer by the Appellants to the Complainant to deliver possession of an alternative flat at the current market price, we refrain from commenting on the said contention.

(3.) Hence, the short question arising for consideration in this Appeal is whether the State Commission was justified in taking into consideration the cost of the flat as per the letter of intent dated 24.03.2007 and the amount of compensation, totalling Rs. 82,01,000/-, for the purpose of deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction.