UNITY IS THE STRONGEST MEDICINE FOR BHARAT

 

UNITY IS THE STRONGEST MEDICINE FOR BHARAT

The most effective remedy against every attempt to weaken Bharat is to keep Hindu society united—beyond caste, language, region, economic status and personal differences.

The old British policy of “divide and rule” appears to be operating again through new and sophisticated strategies. Bharat has repeatedly witnessed attempts:

1. To divide society on religious lines;

2. To exploit the genuine concerns of SC and ST communities for creating internal conflict;

3. To provoke linguistic disputes throughout Bharat;

4. To encourage religious conversion through alleged force, fraud, coercion or improper inducement;

5. To aggravate sensitive issues concerning Northeast Bharat and Jammu and Kashmir;

6. To mislead and provoke sections of Gen-Z through misinformation and emotional manipulation;

7. To spread hatred against Hinduism, Hindu culture and Bharat’s civilisational heritage;

8. To identify self-interested Hindu elites and allegedly induce them to promote narratives against Bharat;

9. To provide foreign protection or shelter to Bharatiya fugitives;

10. To weaken public confidence in our constitutional institutions;

11. To repeat falsehoods until fabricated narratives begin to appear true; and

12. To employ various other methods for disturbing Bharat’s unity, sovereignty and constitutional stability.

The genuine rights and grievances of every citizen—including SC and ST communities—must always be protected. Every Indian language, region and lawful religious belief deserves equal respect. However, these sensitive matters must never be manipulated to divide society, provoke violence or destabilise the nation.

Our Gen-Z is one of Bharat’s greatest strengths. The younger generation must be encouraged through education, employment, constitutional awareness and constructive participation in nation-building—not exploited through misinformation or provoked into anarchy.

Hindu society must respond to hostility against its faith and culture through unity, knowledge, lawful democratic action and civilisational confidence. Hindu unity does not mean hatred towards any other community. It means overcoming caste discrimination, regional rivalry and internal divisions while remaining committed to the dignity and constitutional rights of every Bharatiya.

The strategies that may have succeeded before 2014 have now largely become obsolete. Bharat today is more vigilant, confident and determined. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, the nation has developed greater cultural confidence, stronger national resolve and an increasingly influential position in international affairs.

Nevertheless, Bharat’s permanent strength rests upon its united citizens, constitutional institutions, rule of law and commitment to social harmony. Let us therefore remain alert against every attempt to divide the country on the grounds of religion, caste, tribe, language, region or generation.

Let us protect Bharat through unity, truth, constitutional action and unwavering patriotism.

Yes, we have Mr. Modi.
United we shall protect Bharat.

Jai Hind!

Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate
High Court at Calcutta

সৎ তারুণ্যের পাশে আইন—নিরাপদ ও শক্তিশালী ভারতের নির্মাণ।

 

বর্তমান সময়ে তরুণ প্রজন্ম—বিশেষত Gen Z—সমাজ, রাষ্ট্র ও গণতন্ত্রের ভবিষ্যৎ নির্ধারণে অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ ভূমিকা পালন করছে। তবে কোনও প্রজন্মকে সামগ্রিকভাবে ভালো বা খারাপ হিসেবে চিহ্নিত করা উচিত নয়। একই প্রজন্মের মধ্যে যেমন সৎ, শিক্ষিত, পরিশ্রমী, দেশপ্রেমিক ও দায়িত্বশীল তরুণ-তরুণী রয়েছেন, তেমনই কিছু মানুষ বিভ্রান্তি, অপরাধ, মাদকাসক্তি, সাইবার প্রতারণা, হিংসা কিংবা সমাজবিরোধী কার্যকলাপে জড়িয়ে পড়তে পারেন।

অসৎ ও বিপথগামী প্রবণতাকে প্রতিহত করার সবচেয়ে কার্যকর শক্তি হতে পারে সেই প্রজন্মেরই সচেতন ও মূল্যবোধসম্পন্ন সদস্যরা। কারণ তরুণদের ভাষা, চিন্তাভাবনা, প্রযুক্তির ব্যবহার এবং সামাজিক যোগাযোগের ধরন তাঁদের সমবয়সীরাই সবচেয়ে ভালো বোঝেন। তাই সৎ ও দায়িত্বশীল Gen Z-কে উৎসাহিত, সংগঠিত এবং যথাযথ সুযোগ প্রদান করা জরুরি, যাতে তাঁরা বিভ্রান্ত তরুণদের সচেতন করতে এবং সমাজে ইতিবাচক পরিবর্তন আনতে পারেন।

যেসব তরুণ সত্য, ন্যায় ও সাংবিধানিক মূল্যবোধের পক্ষে দাঁড়াতে গিয়ে হুমকি, হয়রানি, সাইবার অপরাধ, মিথ্যা অভিযোগ, বৈষম্য কিংবা অন্যায়ের সম্মুখীন হন, তাঁদের যথাযথ আইনি সহায়তা ও সুরক্ষা প্রদান করা উচিত। যোগ্য আইনজীবীর পরামর্শ, আইন সম্পর্কে সচেতনতা, বিনামূল্যে আইনগত সহায়তা, সাইবার অভিযোগ দায়েরের ব্যবস্থা এবং প্রয়োজনীয় ক্ষেত্রে আদালতের আশ্রয় তাঁদের ন্যায়বিচার পাওয়ার পথ সুগম করতে পারে।

তবে আইনগত সহায়তা অবশ্যই তথ্যপ্রমাণ, ন্যায়সংগত দাবি এবং আইনানুগ পদ্ধতির ভিত্তিতে দেওয়া উচিত। কোনও তরুণের রাজনৈতিক মত, পরিচয় বা ব্যক্তিগত বিশ্বাসের কারণে নয়—বরং তার আচরণ, সততা এবং আইনসম্মত অবস্থানের ভিত্তিতে পাশে দাঁড়ানোই ন্যায়সঙ্গত। একই সঙ্গে বিপথগামী তরুণদের ক্ষেত্রে শুধু শাস্তি নয়; শিক্ষা, পরামর্শ, পুনর্বাসন এবং সংশোধনের সুযোগও থাকা প্রয়োজন।

সুতরাং, সৎ ও সচেতন তরুণদের পাশে দাঁড়ানো মানে কেবল একটি প্রজন্মকে সমর্থন করা নয়; বরং দেশের ভবিষ্যৎ, গণতান্ত্রিক মূল্যবোধ এবং আইনের শাসনকে শক্তিশালী করা। ভালো Gen Z-র নেতৃত্ব, প্রযুক্তিগত দক্ষতা ও নৈতিক সাহসের মাধ্যমেই বিভ্রান্তি, অপরাধ এবং সমাজবিরোধী প্রবণতার বিরুদ্ধে কার্যকর প্রতিরোধ গড়ে উঠতে পারে।

সৎ তরুণদের উৎসাহিত করুন, অন্যায়ের বিরুদ্ধে তাঁদের আইনি সুরক্ষা দিন এবং বিপথগামীদের সংশোধনের সুযোগ সৃষ্টি করুন।

জয় হিন্দ।

বর্তমান রাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতিতে বিদেশি শক্তিগুলি এখন বিচ্ছিন্ন বিরোধী দলগুলিকে একত্রিত করে একটি অভিন্ন রাজনৈতিক মঞ্চ গড়ে তোলার চেষ্টা করতে পারে।

 

বর্তমান রাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতিতে বিদেশি শক্তিগুলি এখন বিচ্ছিন্ন বিরোধী দলগুলিকে একত্রিত করে একটি অভিন্ন রাজনৈতিক মঞ্চ গড়ে তোলার চেষ্টা করতে পারে। বাহ্যিকভাবে বিজেপি রাজনৈতিক প্রতিযোগিতায় কিছুটা দূরত্ব বজায় রাখছে বলে মনে হলেও, দেশের সাধারণ নাগরিক, তৃণমূল স্তরের কর্মী এবং ভারতীয় সংস্কৃতি ও জাতীয় স্বার্থে বিশ্বাসী মানুষই এই দলের প্রকৃত শক্তি। তাই বিভাজন নয়—সাধারণ মানুষকে জাতীয় উন্নয়ন, আত্মনির্ভরতা ও সাংবিধানিক মূল্যবোধের ভিত্তিতে ঐক্যবদ্ধ করাই এখন প্রধান কর্তব্য।

২০২৪ সালের আগে এবং পরে ভারতের অবস্থান, উন্নয়ন, আন্তর্জাতিক গ্রহণযোগ্যতা, অর্থনীতি, পরিকাঠামো, নিরাপত্তা ও কূটনৈতিক প্রভাবের একটি স্বচ্ছ ও তথ্যনির্ভর তুলনা আরও ব্যাপকভাবে মানুষের সামনে তুলে ধরা প্রয়োজন। কেবল রাজনৈতিক বক্তব্য নয়—বাস্তব পরিসংখ্যান, সরকারি নীতি, সাফল্য এবং সীমাবদ্ধতা সবই জনসমক্ষে উপস্থাপন করা উচিত, যাতে মানুষ নিজেরাই বিচার করতে পারেন।

শৈশবে কলকাতা ফুটবল লিগের প্রথম ডিভিশনে বহু ছোট ও মাঝারি দলকে খেলতে দেখা যেত। কখনও কখনও সেই দলগুলি বড় ক্লাবকেও পরাজিত করত। কিন্তু সাময়িক সাফল্য তাদের স্থায়ী শক্তিতে পরিণত করতে পারেনি; সময়ের সঙ্গে অনেক দলই হারিয়ে গেছে। রাজনীতিতেও একই শিক্ষা প্রযোজ্য—কোনও বিচ্ছিন্ন জয় বা সাময়িক জোট দীর্ঘমেয়াদি গ্রহণযোগ্যতা ও সাংগঠনিক শক্তির নিশ্চয়তা দেয় না। তাই সাময়িক রাজনৈতিক উত্থান-পতন নিয়ে অতিরিক্ত উদ্বিগ্ন হওয়ার প্রয়োজন নেই।

কিছু বিরোধী দলের নীতি, দ্বিচারিতা এবং রাজনৈতিক উদ্দেশ্য ইতিমধ্যেই জনগণের সামনে প্রকাশিত হয়েছে। প্রতারণা, দুর্নীতি, লুণ্ঠন ও বিভাজনের পুরোনো রাজনীতি আর নির্বিচারে চলতে পারে না। গণতান্ত্রিক জবাবদিহি, আইনের শাসন এবং সচেতন জনগণই সেই যুগের অবসান ঘটাতে পারে।

আজ ভারত শুধু অভ্যন্তরীণ রাজনীতির মধ্যে সীমাবদ্ধ নেই; দেশ এখন আন্তর্জাতিক রাজনীতির সর্বোচ্চ পর্যায়ে নিজের প্রভাব ও নেতৃত্ব প্রতিষ্ঠার দৌড়ে রয়েছে। অর্থনীতি, প্রতিরক্ষা, প্রযুক্তি, কূটনীতি ও সাংস্কৃতিক শক্তির ভিত্তিতে ভারত বিশ্বমঞ্চে আরও গুরুত্বপূর্ণ ভূমিকা গ্রহণ করছে। যারা একসময় ভারতকে দুর্বল, বিভক্ত অথবা নির্ভরশীল রাখতে চেয়েছিল, তারা আজ ভারতের ক্রমবর্ধমান আত্মবিশ্বাস ও আন্তর্জাতিক মর্যাদা দেখে নিজেদের পুরোনো হিসাব পুনর্বিবেচনা করতে বাধ্য হচ্ছে।

অতএব, ভয়ের নয়—সময় এখন ঐক্য, সতর্কতা, জনসংযোগ এবং জাতীয় স্বার্থকে সর্বাগ্রে রাখার। সাধারণ মানুষের বিশ্বাস ও অংশগ্রহণই ভারতের সবচেয়ে বড় শক্তি।

জয় হিন্দ।

PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE SUSPECT/S SEEKING SUPPLY OF COPY OF COMPLAINT, SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AND RELIED-UPON DOCUMENTS

 

In the Court of the Learned 11^th Judicial Magistrate at Calcutta,

 

Case No. CS/303718/2026

U/s. 318(4),61(2) of BNS 2023

 

In the matter of;

 

M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE LIMITED.

          ........... Complainant 

-Versus-

 

RANJIT SINGH (PROP. OF JANTA TRADING CO.) & ANR.;

             ..... Suspect/s

 

PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE SUSPECT/S SEEKING SUPPLY OF COPY OF COMPLAINT, SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AND RELIED-UPON DOCUMENTS;

 

The humble petition of the Suspects above-named;

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH;

 

1. That the present complaint case has been instituted by the complainant against the suspects and is presently pending before this Learned Court.

 

2. That the suspects have recently received a pre-cognizance notice issued by this Learned Court directing their appearance and/or response in connection with the present complaint case.

 

3. That, however, along with the said notice, no copy of the complaint petition, no copy of the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant, nor any copy of the documents relied upon by the complainant has been furnished or served upon the suspects.

 

4. That in the absence of the aforesaid documents, the suspects are completely unaware of the precise allegations, averments, claims, assertions, and materials placed by the complainant before this Learned Court.

 

5. That the suspects submit that mere receipt of the pre-cognizance notice, without the accompanying complaint and supporting materials, has deprived them of an effective opportunity to understand the nature and particulars of the allegations sought to be made against them.

 

6. That unless copies of the complaint petition, the statement on solemn affirmation, and the documents relied upon by the complainant are supplied to the suspects, they shall not be in a position to properly answer the allegations, furnish their explanation, controvert the statements made by the complainant, or effectively participate in the proceedings before this Learned Court.

 

7. That supply of the aforesaid documents is necessary in the interest of fairness, transparency, and observance of the principles of natural justice, so that the suspects may be afforded a meaningful opportunity to place their version before this Learned Court.

 

8. That no prejudice shall be caused to the complainant if the documents sought for are directed to be supplied, whereas grave prejudice and hardship shall be caused to the suspects if they are compelled to respond to allegations of which they have no knowledge.

 

9. That the present application is bona fide and made solely for the purpose of obtaining the relevant materials forming the basis of the complaint proceeding.

 

In the premises aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that Your Honour may graciously be pleased to;

 

a) Direct the complainant and/or the concerned office of this Learned Court to furnish and supply to the suspects copies of the complaint petition filed in the present case;

 

b) Direct supply of a copy of the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant recorded before this Learned Court;

 

c) Direct supply of copies of all documents, papers, records, correspondence, agreements, invoices, statements, or other materials relied upon by the complainant in instituting and prosecuting the present complaint case;

 

d) Grant reasonable time to the suspects to file their response, explanation, or objection, if any, after receipt of the aforesaid documents; and

 

e) Pass such further or other order or orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper.

 

And for this act of kindness, the suspects, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.

 

 

 

 

VERIFICATION

 

WE, RANJIT SINGH (Proprietor of Janta Trading Co.), Kolkata Bajar Road, Nayapara, Sadar, Sambalpur, Near Bazar Kolkata Showroom, Orissa, Pin – 768001, AND HARJEET KAUR, of Nayapara, Gole Bazar, Sambalpur, Odisha, Pin - 768001, are suspect in the above-mentioned proceeding, do hereby verify that the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the foregoing petition are true to our knowledge and belief, and that We have not suppressed any material fact.

 

Verified at Calcutta on this 8^th day of September, 2026.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANJIT SINGH (Proprietor of Janta Trading Co.)

Suspect

 

 

 

 

 

HARJEET KAUR
Suspect

Identified by me,

 

 

Advocate

 

 

 

KAILASH TAMOLI ADVOCATE HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST WISHES

 THANK YOU ALL ( those who loved me and voted me first preference vote and also thank to all those who don't loved me and not voted me) 

For RE-ELECTING again as Bar Council member for second times. 

I will always available for any help for your services 

Regards 

Kailash Tamoli 

Advocate 

Bar Council member

REPLY ________________________

HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST WISHES

My dear and esteemed *Sri Kailash Tamoli, Learned Advocate, please accept my heartiest congratulations, warmest wishes, profound affection and sincere blessings upon your glorious re-election as a **Member of the Bar Council for the second consecutive term*.

Your gracious statement of gratitude—thanking not only those learned members who loved, supported and honoured you with their valuable first-preference votes, but also those who did not support or vote for you—beautifully reflects your humility, maturity, democratic spirit and largeness of heart. Such words can come only from a person who believes that an electoral victory is not merely a personal achievement, but a renewed opportunity to serve the entire legal fraternity without discrimination, bitterness or prejudice.

Your re-election is a well-deserved recognition of the trust, confidence and affection that the learned members of the Bar have placed in your leadership. It is also an acknowledgement of your sincere services, accessibility and commitment to the welfare and dignity of advocates.

Your assurance—“I will always be available for any help and service”—is both inspiring and reassuring. It demonstrates that, for you, membership of the Bar Council is not merely a position of honour, but a solemn responsibility to stand beside every member of the legal fraternity in times of need.

May your second term be even more meaningful, successful and distinguished. May you continue to work fearlessly for the rights, welfare, security and professional dignity of advocates. I firmly believe that, under your sincere representation, the voice of the Bar will be heard with greater strength and respect.

May the Almighty bless you with wisdom, courage, good health, happiness and abundant strength so that you may continue serving our noble profession for many more years. May you earn the love and confidence not only of those who supported you in this election, but also of those whose support you are yet to win through your dedication and good work.

Once again, I convey my heartfelt congratulations, affectionate regards and best wishes to you on this remarkable achievement. May your journey of service and leadership continue with greater success and glory.

*With profound regards, love and blessings,*

*Ashok Kumar Singh*

*Advocate*

*High Court at Calcutta*

judicial authorities may be relied upon by the Opposite Parties

 

The following judicial authorities may be relied upon by the Opposite Parties. Ordinarily, detailed case-law belongs in the written notes of argument rather than the factual evidence affidavit; however, brief legal propositions may be incorporated in the affidavit without turning it into argumentative pleadings.

1. Admissions made by the complainants

Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, (1974) 1 SCC 242

The Supreme Court held that clear admissions made in pleadings or during judicial proceedings constitute the best proof of the facts admitted and may dispense with further proof. This supports reliance upon the complainants’ answers admitting possession, withholding of the residual amount, receipt of ₹3,00,000, absence of an engineer’s report and self-assessment of compensation.

Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal, (1979) 4 SCC 790

An evidentiary admission is not necessarily conclusive, but it is substantive evidence against its maker and shifts the burden upon that person to satisfactorily explain it.

Suggested paragraph:

That the answers furnished by the complainants to the questionnaire contain material admissions, including that a portion of the consideration remained withheld, that possession had been obtained and enjoyed since 2019, that no report of any qualified engineer or technical expert had been produced, and that the compensation claimed was self-assessed. In view of the principles laid down in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, (1974) 1 SCC 242 and Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal, (1979) 4 SCC 790, such admissions constitute substantive evidence against their maker and materially corroborate the defence of the Opposite Parties.

2. Evidence through a Power-of-Attorney holder

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217

A power-of-attorney holder may depose regarding acts performed by the attorney and matters within the attorney’s personal knowledge. The attorney cannot replace the principal concerning transactions exclusively undertaken by the principal or facts exclusively within the principal’s knowledge.

Suggested paragraph:

That although Complainant No. 2 has executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of Complainant No. 1, such authorization does not confer personal knowledge upon Complainant No. 1 regarding transactions, payments, conversations or representations exclusively made by or to Complainant No. 2. The evidentiary value of such testimony is therefore confined to matters personally undertaken, witnessed or perceived by the deponent, consistently with Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217.

3. Limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 768

The statutory limitation period under consumer law is mandatory. A consumer complaint filed after two years cannot be entertained unless delay is specifically condoned upon sufficient cause being shown. A subsequent correspondence or demand does not automatically revive an expired cause of action.

Dr. V.N. Shrikhande v. Anita Sena Fernandes, (2011) 1 SCC 53

Limitation ordinarily begins when the alleged deficiency or injury became known, or reasonably ought to have become known, to the complainant. A stale claim cannot ordinarily be revived merely through a later notice.

Suggested paragraph:

That the complainants admittedly entered into possession in or about 2019 and, according to their own case, were aware from that time of the alleged incomplete work, alleged absence of amenities and alleged non-performance now complained of. The legal notice dated 07.02.2024 could not, by itself, create a fresh cause of action in respect of matters already known several years earlier. The complaint is therefore liable to be examined strictly under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in light of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 768 and Dr. V.N. Shrikhande v. Anita Sena Fernandes, (2011) 1 SCC 53.

Important limitation caution: the complainants may rely upon Lata Construction v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah, (2000) 1 SCC 586, which recognizes a continuing cause of action where the promised possession or substituted performance remains unfulfilled. The Opposite Parties should distinguish it on the ground that physical possession was delivered in 2019 and has continuously been enjoyed, while conveyance is stated to be subject to payment of the admitted outstanding amount and registration expenses.

4. Compensation must be proved and cannot be arbitrary

Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65

Consumer fora must record a finding of actual loss, injury, harassment or injustice before awarding compensation. The amount must correspond to the proved injury and cannot be uniform, speculative or arbitrary.

Suggested paragraph:

That the complainants have expressly stated that the compensation demanded by them was self-assessed. They have produced no medical record, expert assessment, accounts, receipts or other reliable material quantifying any actual financial or physical injury. In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compensation must be founded upon a proved loss or injury and must bear a rational relationship to such loss. The speculative claim for compensation is therefore liable to be rejected.

5. Proof of alleged construction defects

The Opposite Parties may advance the proposition that serious allegations concerning structural defects, deviations, construction quality or technical incompleteness ordinarily require cogent technical evidence. However, it should not be pleaded that an expert report is invariably mandatory, because consumer fora may determine visible or admitted defects from photographs, contractual documents, inspection reports and other reliable evidence.

Suggested paragraph:

That the complainants have admittedly not produced any report from a civil engineer, architect, surveyor, municipal authority or other qualified person identifying the alleged defects, their extent, the contractual work allegedly remaining incomplete or the estimated cost of rectification. In the absence of such evidence, the allegations remain general, unquantified and incapable of establishing either deficiency in service or the amount allegedly required for rectification.

6. Consumer jurisdiction and contractual terms

Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725

This decision generally protects consumers against arbitrary and one-sided builder-buyer clauses. The Opposite Parties should not rely on it affirmatively unless the contractual terms in this matter are balanced. It may be distinguished by emphasizing that the present defence is based upon an admitted unpaid balance and reciprocal obligations, rather than an unfair forfeiture or one-sided contractual clause.

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241

This judgment recognizes that the parties’ respective contractual defaults, payment obligations, project status and entitlement to relief must be examined category-wise and upon the evidence applicable to each allottee. It should be used cautiously because much of the ultimate relief in that case was granted to allottees.

7. Relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The affidavit and arguments may also refer to:

• Section 2(11): “deficiency” must relate to an actual fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the performance of the service.
• Section 38(6): proceedings are principally determined upon affidavits and documentary evidence.
• Section 38(9): the Commission possesses specified civil-court powers concerning evidence and documents.
• Section 39(1): substantive relief follows only where the allegations concerning defect or deficiency are proved.
• Section 39(1)(d): compensation requires proof of loss or injury caused by the negligence of the Opposite Party.
• Section 69: complaint must ordinarily be filed within two years from accrual of the cause of action.

The strongest authorities for this particular defence are Nagindas Ramdas, Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani, Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh. The limitation defence should be pleaded as an alternative defence because the complainants may contend that non-execution of conveyance constitutes a continuing cause of action.

 

EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES (Under Section 38(9) read with Section 38(6) and other applicable provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

KOLKATA UNIT-III, WEST BENGAL

18, Judges Court Road, Kolkata 700027

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 226 OF 2024

 

1. Smt. Kakali Sen 2. Sri Abhinandan Ghosh	Complainants
Versus 1. M/s S.S. Construction 2. Sri Sujit Saha	Opposite Parties

 

EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT

ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Under Section 38(9) read with Section 38(6) and other

applicable provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

I, Sri Sujit Saha, son of Late Sambhunath Saha, aged about 52 years, by faith Hindu, by occupation Business, residing at Premises No. A/61/2, Bapuji Nagar, Post Office Regent Estate, Police Station Jadavpur, Kolkata - 700092, District South 24-Parganas, being Opposite Party No. 2 and the sole proprietor of Opposite Party No. 1, M/s S.S. Construction, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows;

 

1.   I am Opposite Party No. 2 in the present proceeding and the sole proprietor of Opposite Party No. 1. I am personally acquainted with the transaction, the project records, the payments and adjustments reflected in the accounts of Opposite Party No. 1, and the circumstances in which possession of the subject flat and car-parking space was delivered. I am therefore competent to affirm this affidavit for myself and on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1.

 

2.   I repeat, reiterate and rely upon the Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties. The statements contained herein are in continuation of, and shall be read together with, the Written Version. Save what is expressly admitted in this affidavit or is borne out by admitted records, every allegation in the complaint and in the complainants' Evidence on Affidavit is denied.

 

3.   The complaint is misconceived and not maintainable in the form presented. The complainants have suppressed material facts relating to receipt/refund and adjustment of money, the outstanding balance consideration, their long and uninterrupted enjoyment of possession, and their own failure to complete the contractual formalities for conveyance. The complainants must be put to strict proof of each allegation and each monetary claim.

 

4.   Opposite Party No. 1 is a proprietorship concern engaged in real-estate development and construction and is represented by me as its sole proprietor. The landowners, namely Sri Amritlal Dutta, Sri Dhananjoy Dutta, Sri Ajay Dutta, Sri Digbijay Dutta, Smt. Gopa Dutta and Smt. Molina Dutta, entered into a registered Development Agreement dated 21 December 2012 with the Opposite Parties concerning the land measuring approximately four cottahs at Mouza Baderaipur, J.L. No. 34, within P.S. Jadavpur, comprised in the plots and premises described in the said instrument, including the postal premises at D/82, Bapuji Nagar, Kolkata - 700092. The instrument was registered before D.S.R.-I, Alipore as Book I, CD Volume 20, pages 216-240, No. 04460 of 2012.

 

5.   The landowners also executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 21 December 2012 in my favour, recorded before D.S.R.-I, Alipore in Book I, CD Volume 20, pages 241-256, No. 04461 of 2012. The said authority empowered me, inter alia, to undertake development, enter into agreements for sale and execute deeds of conveyance in favour of intending purchasers in accordance with the development arrangement.

 

6.   The Kolkata Municipal Corporation sanctioned the building plan for construction of a G+3 storied building under B.P. No. 2013100235 dated 3 January 2014. Construction was undertaken pursuant to the sanctioned plan and the project documents. The complainants have not produced any report of a qualified civil engineer, architect, municipal authority or other competent expert establishing any actionable structural defect, deviation or incomplete work attributable to the Opposite Parties.

 

7.   The complainants approached the Opposite Parties to purchase, from the developer's allocation, Flat No. 2B on the southern side of the first floor, measuring approximately 750 sq. ft. super built-up area and consisting of two bedrooms, one kitchen, drawing-cum-dining space, one toilet, one W.C. and one balcony, together with a covered car-parking space measuring approximately 125 sq. ft. on the ground floor.

 

8.   A registered Agreement for Sale was thereafter executed on 5 January 2016 and registered before D.S.R.-I, Alipore in Book I, Volume 1601/2016, pages 1160-1210, No. 060100025 of 2016. The total agreed consideration was Rs. 42,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Two Lakhs only). The rights and obligations of the parties, including payment of the entire consideration and completion of conveyancing formalities, are governed by the terms of that registered instrument.

 

9.   The complainants' payment narrative is incomplete because it omits the material refund/adjustment made in their favour. The gross amounts claimed or recorded include Rs. 6,80,000/-, two demand drafts bearing Nos. 095491 and 095492 dated 25 June 2016 for Rs. 85,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- respectively, bank-loan disbursement(s) aggregating Rs. 33,60,000/-, and a further amount of Rs. 50,000/-. These figures aggregate to Rs. 42,50,000/- before accounting for the refund and adjustment stated below.

 

10.                On or about 24 January 2016, the Opposite Parties refunded/paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainants through Cheque No. 184751 and a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- in cash. After crediting the complainants with their gross remittances and debiting the refund/adjustment of Rs. 3,75,000/-, the net consideration retained by the Opposite Parties is Rs. 38,75,000/-. Consequently, a balance sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- remains due and payable against the agreed consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/-. The contrary assertion that the entire agreed consideration, or any amount in excess thereof, stands finally paid is denied.

 

11.                The complainants have not placed a complete, reconciled payment statement correlating every alleged payment with its date, mode, bank debit, developer's receipt and treatment in the parties' account. A loan sanction letter by itself establishes only a sanctioned facility and not necessarily the date, amount and beneficiary of every disbursement. The complainants are therefore required to prove actual disbursement and receipt by primary banking and accounting records.

 

12.                The assertion that the further sum of Rs. 50,000/- was an extra and independent payment demanded for completion of the garage is specifically denied. The complainants must prove the alleged demand, its contractual basis, the precise mode of payment and a receipt showing that it was accepted as an additional garage charge rather than as part of the parties' running account.

 

13.                Upon completion of the basic construction, physical possession of Flat No. 2B together with the car-parking space was delivered to the complainants. Since taking possession, the complainants have resided in and/or used the subject premises and have enjoyed the same peacefully, without eviction, dispossession or obstruction by the Opposite Parties. Their prolonged and beneficial occupation is inconsistent with the sweeping allegation that no service was rendered or that possession was denied.

 

14.                The complainants themselves admit in their Evidence on Affidavit that possession of the flat and car-parking space was delivered to them. Their grievance is therefore confined principally to conveyance and alleged incomplete amenities. Such admitted possession must be considered together with their unpaid balance, their contractual obligations concerning stamp duty and registration expenses, and the absence of reliable expert proof of the alleged incomplete or defective work.

 

15.                The allegations concerning the lift, staircase and garage are vague and unsupported by technical evidence. Photographs, without proof of the date, location, authorship, condition depicted and comparison with the sanctioned plan or contractual specifications, cannot by themselves establish a continuing deficiency attributable to the Opposite Parties. No authenticated municipal inspection report, engineer's report, completion-status report or contemporaneous complaint to KMC has been disclosed in the complainants' affidavit.

 

16.                The Opposite Parties have never refused to execute the deed of conveyance unconditionally after performance by the purchasers. The Opposite Parties have at all material times been ready and willing to proceed with registration upon the complainants paying the outstanding balance of Rs. 3,25,000/-, arranging the necessary stamp duty and registration charges, settling the draft deed and attending the registering office in accordance with the Agreement for Sale.

 

17.                The complainants did not tender the aforesaid balance amount along with a proposed date for registration, did not produce proof of purchase of stamp paper/e-stamp or payment of registration fees, and did not forward a mutually workable draft conveyance for execution. A party who has not demonstrated its own readiness to perform the reciprocal obligations cannot attribute the entire non-registration to the Opposite Parties.

 

18.                The advocate's notice dated 7 February 2024, even if received, did not extinguish the complainants' liability to account for the refund/adjustment, pay the outstanding balance and comply with the registration requirements. The Opposite Parties' continuing willingness to execute conveyance upon full contractual compliance remains unchanged.

 

19.                The complainants' allegation that they have become 'trespassers' is self-serving and incorrect. They were placed in possession pursuant to the Agreement for Sale and their occupation has not been treated by the Opposite Parties as unlawful. The absence of a registered conveyance does not convert consensual possession delivered under the agreement into trespass at the instance of the developer.

 

20.                The complaint was instituted in 2024 although the Agreement for Sale was executed in January 2016, the stipulated period referred to by the complainants ended in January 2018, and possession was accepted and enjoyed for years. The complainants have not disclosed a satisfactory chain of contemporaneous written demands from 2018 onward. Their bare plea of a recurring or day-to-day cause of action cannot, without proof, automatically revive claims founded on events known many years earlier. The plea of limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is therefore maintained, subject to adjudication on the complete record.

 

21.                The complainants have also failed to establish the basis or quantum of compensation. No expert valuation, computation of actual pecuniary loss, proof of additional stamp duty actually paid, or other reliable material has been produced to connect any alleged loss with an act or omission of the Opposite Parties. Market appreciation or a statutory change in stamp duty cannot, without causal proof, be converted into damages against the Opposite Parties.

 

22.                The complainants' Evidence on Affidavit is further deficient inasmuch as Complainant No. 1 claims to depose for Complainant No. 2 without disclosing a written authority in the evidence itself. Facts exclusively within the personal knowledge of Complainant No. 2, including his individual bank transactions, loan dealings and communications, require proof by a competent witness and the underlying records.

 

23.                The questionnaire submitted by the Opposite Parties specifically calls upon the complainants to produce their authority to depose, complete bank and loan-disbursement records, receipts for every alleged payment, evidence concerning Cheque No. 184751 and the cash adjustment, proof of tender of the outstanding balance, registration preparations, expert/municipal material concerning alleged defects, contemporaneous correspondence and the basis of compensation. The absence of satisfactory answers and primary records should be weighed while assessing the complainants' credibility and discharge of burden.

 

24.                The complainants' general denials do not displace the documentary and accounting issues raised in the Written Version. In particular, a mere denial that the refund cheque was encashed is not proof that it was not received; the best evidence would be the relevant bank statement and cheque-clearing record. Likewise, the assertion of full payment requires a transaction-wise reconciliation and acknowledgment of receipt by the Opposite Parties.

 

25.                The complainants have subsequently filed Answers to the Questionnaire through Complainant No. 1. The said answers form part of the evidentiary record and are material because, notwithstanding general denials, they contain express admissions regarding possession, receipt of money, non-payment of the residual consideration, want of technical evidence, want of contemporaneous written demands and the speculative basis of compensation. The Opposite Parties rely upon those admissions against the complainants.

 

26.                In answer to Question Nos. 12, 13, 23, 26 to 28, 43, 44, 48 to 51, 65 and the connected questions, the complainants have repeatedly stated that the concerned bank has withheld a part or residual amount and that such amount is yet to be released to the Opposite Parties. This is a clear admission that the entire agreed consideration has not in fact been received by the Opposite Parties. The attempt to shift responsibility for such non-disbursement to the alleged non-production of a completion certificate does not convert an unpaid amount into payment and does not support the allegation that the Opposite Parties received the entire or excess consideration.

 

27.                In answer to Question Nos. 14, 15 and 18, the complainants have admitted receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties, although they now seek to characterise it as rent or compensation for alleged delay. No clause, contemporaneous writing, receipt, settlement or calculation has been disclosed showing that Cheque No. 184751 was issued and accepted as rent. The newly introduced characterisation is inconsistent with the omission of any clear rent-adjustment case in the original payment narrative and requires strict proof. The admission of receipt nevertheless supports the Opposite Parties' case that the complainants' gross-payment figures cannot be treated as the net consideration retained by the developer.

 

28.                The complainants deny receipt of the further cash amount of Rs. 75,000/- in answer to Question Nos. 17 and 18. That denial creates a specific issue for adjudication and makes the original accounts, cash-book entries, vouchers, contemporaneous correspondence and witness evidence material. The denial does not negate the separate and unequivocal admission concerning receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/-, nor does it establish full payment of the Rs. 42,00,000/- consideration.

 

29.                In answer to Question No. 16, the complainants admit that the bank statement disproving receipt or credit of the cheque amount was not filed, while stating that it may be produced if directed. In answer to Question Nos. 19 to 22 and 70, they similarly defer production of original payment records. Consequently, their assertion of full payment presently rests on incomplete material and must be tested against primary bank records, the complete loan-disbursement schedule, receipts, the memo of consideration and the Opposite Parties' accounts.

 

30.                In answer to Question Nos. 24, 31 to 33, 42 and 53, the complainants admit that they have been in possession and have continuously resided in or used the flat, expressly stating in Answer No. 53 that possession has continued since 2019. These admissions corroborate delivery and enjoyment of the principal subject matter of the transaction. The assertion that occupation was under compulsion or that the complainants incurred expenditure to make the premises habitable remains unsupported by invoices, bills, payment vouchers, an engineer's assessment or proof that any identified work was contractually chargeable to the Opposite Parties.

 

31.                In answer to Question No. 39, the complainants expressly admit that no engineer's certificate or report has yet been filed and say only that it may be filed later. In answer to Question No. 41, they question the relevance of any complaint to KMC rather than identifying one. Their allegations regarding incomplete construction, lift, staircase, garage, common passage and non-completion certificate are therefore not presently supported by independent technical or municipal evidence capable of establishing the exact defect, contractual obligation, date, cause, extent or reasonable rectification cost.

 

32.                The complainants' Answer No. 9 alleges that a completion certificate has not been obtained because the building remains incomplete. This is a conclusion and not proof of the reason for non-issuance. No communication from KMC, inspection report, refusal order, defect notice or authenticated status record has been produced to show that the competent authority withheld a completion certificate for any particular default of the Opposite Parties. The complainants cannot substitute their inference for evidence from the statutory authority.

 

33.                In answer to Question Nos. 34, 35, 37 and 46 to 49, the complainants accept that they are liable to pay registration and incidental charges and further state that the residual bank payment is to be tendered at registration. These answers reinforce the existence of reciprocal and outstanding purchaser-side obligations. Their assertion that the developer alone must arrange every formality does not dispense with their obligation to provide funds, pay statutory charges, approve and execute the deed, attend registration and ensure disbursement of the unpaid consideration.

 

34.                In answer to Question Nos. 56 to 58, the complainants rely upon a continuous cause of action but, when asked for contemporaneous correspondence between 2018 and 2023, state only that they verbally approached Opposite Party No. 2 from time to time. Apart from the notice dated 7 February 2024, no continuous series of dated written demands has been identified. This answer materially supports the Opposite Parties' plea that the assertion of a day-to-day cause of action requires strict scrutiny under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

35.                In answer to Question No. 59, the complainants state that the compensation was 'self-assessed' and would ultimately be decided by the Learned Commission. In answer to Question No. 60, they admit that no medical record is relied upon for the alleged mental agony. In answer to Question No. 61, they do not produce a calculation connecting enhanced property value or stamp duty with a proved breach. These answers demonstrate that the monetary claim lacks an objective computation, expert valuation, actual-loss documents or reliable causal foundation.

 

36.                The Special Power of Attorney annexed with the answers authorises Complainant No. 1 to institute, verify and conduct proceedings and to adduce evidence concerning the flat. The Opposite Parties do not ignore that instrument. However, an authority to depose does not give the attorney personal knowledge of every act performed exclusively by Complainant No. 2, his individual bank dealings, loan instructions, communications or alleged payments. Such facts must still be proved by the person having direct knowledge or through admissible primary records.

 

37.                The complainants' answers are frequently confined to expressions such as 'not a fact', 'agreement speaks for itself', 'will produce if directed', 'will file in due course', or cross-references to other answers. Such responses do not supply missing dates, receipts, bank entries, municipal records, technical reports or calculations specifically sought by the questionnaire. The Learned Commission may therefore draw the appropriate evidentiary conclusion if the best available records remain withheld at the stage of final adjudication.

 

38.                The transaction was for a residential flat, but the Opposite Parties maintain the preliminary objections taken in the Written Version regarding the complainants' status, maintainability, jurisdiction and the true nature of the relief sought. These objections are to be decided on evidence, including the intended and actual use of the premises and the contractual framework, and are not waived by this affidavit.

 

39.                Without prejudice to those objections, the admitted Agreement for Sale, delivery and enjoyment of possession, and the Opposite Parties' willingness to execute conveyance upon receipt of the contractual balance demonstrate that there has been no deliberate deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Any non-registration is substantially attributable to the complainants' non-payment and non-completion of reciprocal conveyancing steps.

 

40.                The allegations of mala fides, gross negligence, arbitrary conduct and intentional harassment are denied. They are conclusions unsupported by particularised facts or independent evidence. The complainants have enjoyed the principal subject matter of the transaction while withholding the outstanding balance and now seek orders that would permit conveyance without full payment.

 

41.                Photocopies relied upon by the complainants are subject to proof, admissibility and production of originals or legally acceptable electronic/banking records. The Opposite Parties reserve the right to object to documents that are unauthenticated, incomplete, illegible, unrelated to the subject unit or unsupported by a competent witness.

 

42.                I rely upon the registered Development Agreement dated 21 December 2012, the registered Power of Attorney dated 21 December 2012, the registered Agreement for Sale dated 5 January 2016, the sanctioned building plan particulars, the available payment/account records including the record relating to Cheque No. 184751 dated 24 January 2016, and such further original records as may be produced with leave of the Learned Commission. Copies already forming part of the proceeding may be read as part of this evidence, subject to proof and admissibility.

 

43.                For the foregoing reasons, the complainants have failed to prove any actionable deficiency in service or unfair trade practice entitling them to the reliefs claimed. The complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. Alternatively, and strictly without prejudice, any direction for conveyance must be conditional upon reconciliation of accounts, payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/-, and the complainants bearing and arranging the applicable stamp duty, registration charges and other purchaser-side obligations under the Agreement for Sale.

 

44.                I respectfully pray that this Learned Commission be pleased to take this Evidence on Affidavit on record, reject the unsupported allegations and monetary claims of the complainants, dismiss the complaint with appropriate costs, and pass such further order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

 

Sl. No.	Document / Record	Mark / Exhibit
1	Written Version with annexure, and Questionnaire already filed in C.C. No. 226 of 2024	Exh. 1 & Exh. 1/1
2	Complainants' Answers to the Questionnaire with annexed Special Power of Attorney, in C.C. No. 226 of 2024	Exh. 2

 

VERIFICATION

 

I, Sri Sujit Saha, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the statements contained in paragraphs 1 and 4 to 19 and 28 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and/or derived from the records maintained in the ordinary course of business which I believe to be true; the statements contained in paragraphs 2, 3 and 20 to 27 and 29 to 37 are based on the pleadings, records and legal advice received and believed by me to be true; and the final paragraph is my respectful prayer before this Learned Commission. No material fact has knowingly been suppressed.

 

Verified at Kolkata on this ____ day of __________, 2026.

 

 

 

 

Identified by me Advocate

DEPONENT

 

 

 

 

Notary