Before the Ld District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission Unit
III Kolkata
Ref: CC/654/2021
Haripada Bhowmick
.....Complainant.
Vs
1. M/S Chakraborty
Associates
2. Utpal Chakraborty
Opp. Party
Affidavit in chief on behalf of the Opposite Party named above.
I, Utpal Chakraborty s/o Ullas Chakraborty Sole Proprietor
of M/s Chakraborty Associates having its office at P-74 State Bank Park, P.S Thakurpukur, Kolkata 700063
and also residing, at 74 State Bank Park, P.S Thakurpukur, Kolkata 700053 aged, about years, by faith Hindu, by occupation business do hereby
solemnly affirm and
declare
as follows:-
1.
That I am
the Opposite Party in the instant case.
2.
I
state
that the complainant has filed the instant case to harass
3.
.
That I was approached by the complainant
to develop his land in consideration of owners allocation
4.
That
I
had
entered into a
Joint Venture Agreement with the complainant on 02.08.2014.
5.
That
subsequently a
Supplement
Agreement was signed
between
myself and
the
complainant on 02.08.2016 wherein the clauses of the Joint Venture Agreement were remodeled.
6.
That
the
complainant
for
material
gain had
suppressed the
Supplement Agreement.
7.
That
the complainant demanded
his allocation as per the Joint Venture Agreement but not as per the Supplement
Agreement.
8.
That
it is evident from the demand notice made by the Ld. Advocate Sri Rabindranath Das wherein demand has been made on the basis of Joint Venture
Agreement and not
as per the Supplement Agreemen
9.
That
demand
has been made in
regard to 33% of the total constructed area
and forfeit money of
Rs. 1,00,000/- within 18 months from the date of sanction plan but whereas in the Supplement Agreement it has been already mentioned that the owner shall extend the stipulated period for another six months i.e. to 24 months instead
of 18 months
from the date
of sanction
of
building plan.
10.
That in
accordance to the Supplement Agreement the owners allocation shall contain two
bed room flat measuring
700 sq ft super built up area at South East side in the second floor building at 541 Tarapada
Santra Sarani/
Chandal
Para Road ward no 124 Kolkata-700063 and a sum of Rs 3,00,000/- cash consideration together with
proportionate undivided share in the land instead of entire second floor and Rs. 1,00,000/- cash consideration. The complainant has filed the instant case with false and
misleading fact and is liable to be rejected.
11.
That the
complainant has
suppressed the fact
that the
Opposite Party has
already paid a consideration amount of Rs. 35,000/-
12.
That the
complainant has made all his demands based upon the Joint Venture Agreement suppressing the Supplement Agreement and now trying to mix and match both the agreements which is not permissible in law and hence the complainants application is liable to be rejected.
13.
That
the complainant has suppressed material fact and is
therefore engaged in unfair practice and hence the complainants application is liable to be rejected with costs.
14.
That
the
complainant is
in clear
dilemma as
to
whether make his claim on
the basis
of
the Joint Venture Agreement
or on the basis
of the Supplement Agreement
and in
the
process trying to make a
volatile
mixture of both the agreements which is not permissible in law.
15.
That
the complainant
has
rescinded the
Joint
Venture Agreement by signing
the
Supplementary Agreement redefining the terms and conditions.
16.
That it
is not
a fact that
the Opposite Party is engaged in unfair trade practice.
17.
That
it is not a fact that the Opposite
Party is
deficient
in
service.
18.
That the complainant has no cause of
action to
file the instant
case.
19.
That the complainant is not liable to get any relief he has claimed for.
20.
That the
complainants application is liable to rejected with
costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment