{"id":148400,"date":"2008-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008"},"modified":"2018-12-26T17:08:31","modified_gmt":"2018-12-26T11:38:31","slug":"kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries … on 12 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries … on 12 May, 2008<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL\nCOMMISSION \n\n   NEW DELHI.\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  ORIGINAL PETITION NO. \n190 OF 2000 \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nKunj Behari Mehta & Anr.   Complainants  \n\n \n\n  Versus \n\n \n\nAnsal Properties & Industries Ltd.  Opposite\nParty \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n BEFORE: \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT. \n\n \n\n HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER.  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Complainant  Mr. S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocate \n\n \n\n With\nMr. Rajesh Lathigara, Advocate  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Opposite Party  Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate.  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n Dated:   12th MAY, 2008  \n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n O R D\nE R \n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Can\na builder after agreeing to deliver the possession within a stipulated time, raise a contention\nthat as the price of the flat\/property\nhas gone up, it should not be directed to pay any compensation or to pay\ncompensation at reduced rate for delay\nin delivering the possession of the\nproperty?  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n In\nour view such\ncontention of any builder is unjustified and unreasonable because after sale of\nthe property all the benefits accrue to the purchaser and not to the\nvendor. In any case, if such contention is accepted, the builders\/contractors would earn\ncrores of rupees by delaying the\ndelivery of the possession of the\nflat\/property for months together for\none reason or the other.  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Facts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The
\nComplainants have approached this Commission on 3rd May, 2000 with a
\nprayer that the Opposite Party  Ansal
\nProperties & Industries Ltd., be directed to deliver possession of
\napartment No.502, on 5th
\nfloor, E Block, Celebrity Homes and also to pay interest @ 24% per annum
\non Rs.26,26,790\/-, i.e., the
\namount deposited by them with the
\nOpposite Party, w.e.f. 10.10.1998 till
\nthe date of delivery of possession.\n<\/p>\n
In the alternative, they have
\nprayed that if the Opposite Party, is unable to deliver the
\npossession of the apartment, then the Opposite Party be directed to refund the
\namount of Rs.26,26,790\/- to the
\nComplainants with interest @ 24% from
\nthe date of payment of the instalment till the date of actual realization from the
\nOpposite Party.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 On the said complaint,
\non  19th December, 2000, this Commission had issued
\nnotice to the Opposite Party. However,
\nthe matter remained pending on one ground or the other. When it came up for hearing on  7th December, 2007, the matter was adjourned so as to enable the parties to explore the
\npossibility of a compromise. On that date it was agreed by the
\nComplainants that they would deposit Rs.5,58,000\/- with the Registrar of this Commission on or before 12th December,
\n2007 and the Opposite Party would
\ndeliver the possession of the flat to
\nthe Complainants on or before 19th December, 2007. This agreement was without prejudice to the
\ncontentions raised by both the parties before this Commission. It was also pointed out by the learned
\ncounsel for the
\nOpposite Party that while calculating the amount of
\nRs.5,58,000\/-, the Opposite Party had
\nnot considered the maintenance charges which were required to be paid by the
\nComplainants from the date of offer
\nof possession, i.e., from September, 2003 and, hence, that issue
\nbe kept open for arguments at the time of final hearing. Order was passed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Again, when the
\nmatter came up for hearing on 30th April, 2008, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Complainants submitted that for unjustified
\ndelay in delivering the
\npossession of the apartment from 10th October, 1998 till 20th December,
\n2007, the Opposite Party should be directed to pay interest @ 24% per annum on
\nthe amount deposited by the Complainants.
\nFurther, reliance was placed on the receipt dated 3rd
\nSeptember, 1996 and covering letter
\ndated 28th August, 1996 to the effect that interest @ 17% per annum would be payable by the Opposite Party on all advance deposits
\nprovided the entire payment is made in one go. On that basis , the
\nComplainants deposited the 6th,
\n7th, 8th and 9th instalments for which receipt was issued by the Opposite Party on  3rd September, 1996. On that receipt, it was specifically
\nmentioned, This payment is to confirm that the 6th, 7th,
\n8th and 9th instalments are made in advance and 17%
\ninterest would be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 For verification
\nof the said letter and the receipt, time was given to the learned counsel for the Opposite
\nParty. At the time of hearing, learned
\ncounsel for the Opposite Party did not dispute the said letter or the
\nreceipt.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 With this
\nbackground, we would refer to the agreement executed between the parties with
\nregard to sale of the apartment which was to be constructed by the Opposite
\nParty. The agreement is dated  2nd March, 1995. As per the said agreement, the
\nOpposite Party was to construct the Celebrity Homes, Palam Vihar with certain specifications as provided therein and the Complainants were required to the pay
\nbasic sale price of Rs.28,38,000\/-,
\nexternal development charges of Rs.89,870, charges of Rs.1,00,000\/- for
\ncar parking space in the basement, and club membership fee of Rs.20,000. The basic sale price was to be paid in instalments from  9th April, 1995 to  9th December, 1997. It was also agreed that at the time of
\ndelivery of possession 5% of the basic price, i.e.,
\nRs.1,41,900\/- was to be paid by the Complainants.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 As per Clause
\n13, the Opposite Party had agreed that the possession of the said
\npremises, Phase-1, was likely to be
\ndelivered by the Company to the
\nApartment\/Penthouse\/Garden Allottee
\nwithin three and half years from the date of booking, subject to force majeure circumstances and on
\nreceipt of all payments punctually as per agreed terms, and also on receipt of complete payments of
\nthe basic sale price and other charges due and payable upto the
\ndate of possession.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 As some extra
\nconstruction was made, the Complainants were required to pay a higher basic sale
\nprice at Rs.29,88,800. Out of that, the
\nOpposite Party received Rs.25,29,770\/-. That amount was paid by the Complainants
\nbefore October, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 It is also
\nagreed that the Complainants were required to pay extra development charges
\namounting to Rs.4,140\/-, electric connection charges of Rs.2,35,000\/- as well
\nas fire fighting charges amounting to
\nRs.29,688\/-, stamp duty and registration charges at Rs.6,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 For the
\naforesaid facts, there is no dispute between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The question which requires consideration is how much compensation is to be awarded to the
\nComplainants for the delay in construction and delivery of possession?\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 As stated above,
\npossession of the premises was to be delivered within 3-1\/2 years from the date
\nof agreement, on
\npayment of the due instalments regularly.
\nIt is not disputed
\nthat the Complainants had paid the entire amount before October,
\n1997. The agreement between the parties was executed
\non  2nd March, 1995. If the period of 3-1\/2 years is taken into
\nconsideration, then the Opposite Party
\nwas required to deliver the possession on or before  10th October, 1998.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 However, the
\nOpposite Party was actually
\nrequired to be directed by this Commission to deliver the possession in
\nDecember, 2007 and consequently, the possession of the apartment was delivered
\nonly on 20th December, 2007(as against 10th October,
\n1998).\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the Opposite Party submitted
\nthat the Opposite Party had written a
\nletter to the Complainants on  2nd August, 2003 and informed the Complainants that the Opposite Party had immense pleasure in forwarding the formal letter as Offer of Possession and welcoming the Complainants to Celebrity
\nHomes  an important Land Mark of Palam Vihar.
\nThe Opposite
\nParty produced on
\nrecord a copy of the said letter.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 As against this,
\nit is contended by the learned counsel for the Complainants that the said letter was sent to a wrong address,
\nbecause before the date of the said letter the Complainants had shifted
\nand the letter was received back by the Opposite Party.
\nThe learned counsel further contended that knowing full well that the
\ncomplaint was filed on  19th December, 2000, no such offer of possession
\nwas made before this Commission, in the
\npresent proceedings. He submits that this was a fraud committed by the Opposite Party. He, therefore, contended that the Opposite
\nParty should be
\ndirected to pay compensation and the measurement of the compensation should be
\ngrant of interest, if not @ 24% p.a. as
\nprayed, at least, @ 17 % per annum as agreed by the Opposite
\nParty in its own letter dated  28th August, 1996 and the receipt dated  3rd September, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 As against this,
\nthe learned counsel appearing
\non behalf of the Opposite Party submitted that in such cases, there was no
\nquestion of awarding interest @ 24% or 17%
\nbecause the Opposite Party had already delivered the possession of the flat and the value of the said flat had increased due to the increase in the price of the
\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The learned
\ncounsel for the Complainants contended that the Opposite
\nParty was charging interest @ 24% per annum, on delayed
\npayments, and, therefore, it should be directed
\nto pay compensation at the said rate, and, in any case @ 17% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 In
\nour view, the contention that
\nthere is increase in the price of the property and, therefore, compensation for such inordinate delay in delivery of possession should not be
\ngranted, is totally misconceived. If
\nthe price of an
\nimmovable property increases, it cannot be said that the parties
\nare not required to abide by their contractual obligations. In any case, it is the luck of the Complainants
\nthat the price of the property has
\nincreased and it cannot be said that it is for the benefit of the vendor. The builder\/vendor of the property cannot claim advantage
\non account of increase in price after sale.
\nHence, this contention is totally unreasonable and unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Further, an Application dated
\n7.11.2006 was filed before this
\nCommission, stating therein that the
\nComplainant, namely, Kunj Behari Mehta,
\ncame to India on 29.9.2006 and visited the flat on 1.10.2006 and came to
\nknow that the Opposite Party had given possession of adjoining flats, namely, E-501 and E-503. He, therefore, met the Manager at
\nsite who informed that his flat No.E-502 was ready for possession for quite some time. However, the Manager expressed his inability to show the
\nflat in question as the same was occupied by the contractor of the Opposite
\nParty, and, at that
\ntime, the flat was locked. Thereafter, the complainant No.1 went to the Head Office of the
\nOpposite Party and contacted the Manager-Sales and
\nrequested him to hand over the
\npossession of the flat in question. The
\nManager, roughly and curtly,
\nreplied, Go to the Court and
\nget its possession through the Court.\n<\/p>\n
These facts are not denied by the Opposite Party.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Considering the
\naforesaid facts, in our view, the Opposite Party is required to pay compensation
\nfor unjustifiably not delivering the possession of the flat as
\nper the agreement in October 1998 till December, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
 In our view, the
\nends of justice would be met if, for this unjustified delay, we direct the Opposite Party to pay interest
\n@ 12% per annum from 1st
\nNovember, 1998 till 1st December, 2007 on the amount deposited by
\nthe Complainant upto 1st November, 1997 i.e. in all
\non a sum of Rs.25,29,770\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Further, for the
\nhigh-handed and rough behaviour of the Manager of the Opposite Party, the
\nOpposite Party shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000\/-. This amount shall be deposited with this
\nCommission by way of bank draft drawn in the name of the Registrar
\nof this Commission which shall be transferred
\nto the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 In the result,
\nthe complaint is partly allowed. The
\nOpposite Party is directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum
\nfrom 1st November, 1998 till 1st December, 2007 on
\nthe amount deposited by the Complainant upto 1st November,
\n1997, i.e., in all
\non the sum of Rs.25,29,770\/-. It would be open to the Complainants to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,58,000\/-
\ndeposited with this Commission and the Opposite Party after adjustment of the
\nsaid amount of deposit, shall pay the remaining
\namount on account of interest to the
\ncomplainants within four weeks
\nfrom today. There shall be no order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
.J.\n<\/p>\n
(M.B. SHAH) <\/p>\n
PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) <\/p>\n
 MEMBER<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries … on 12 May, 2008 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI. \u00a0 ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 190 OF 2000 \u00a0 Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. Complainants Versus Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. Opposite Party \u00a0 \u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nKunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries ... on 12 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries ... on 12 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-26T11:38:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries … on 12 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-26T11:38:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1798,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008\",\"name\":\"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries ... on 12 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-26T11:38:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries … on 12 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries ... on 12 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries ... on 12 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-26T11:38:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries … on 12 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-26T11:38:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008"},"wordCount":1798,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008","name":"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries ... on 12 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-26T11:38:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunj-behari-mehta-anr-vs-ansal-properties-industries-on-12-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. vs Ansal Properties & Industries … on 12 May, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148400","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=148400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}