Skip to content

About Sulaiman Bhimani

I am the President and Founder of NGO called the Citizens Justice Forum (Reg No. E-28689 Mumbai) Our NGO is primarily functioning to address, resolve and put to rest the grievances of masses at large particularly those sections of society who are underprivileged, ignorant and unaware about their legal rights given to them by the Indian Constitution and are being exploited legal system. In short, we aim to assist those who seek justice, achieve their rights given to them by law. Once such issue is brought to our notice by aggrieved citizens, we after a thorough study of the issue we represent the suppressed, aggrieved and neglected citizens. By taking up their issues with higher authorities and put the issues in Public domain through social media posting on blogs, tweet them or publish in Main Media as the case may be. Keeping in mind at all times the benefit and up-liftment of the aggrieved citizens, the gross injustice done to the citizen of India who ought to be protected by the hands of law and hence we take this initiative to address their issues.

3



10th July, 2017, Mumbai: I handed over a letter to Mr Gautam Chatterjee, Chief of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (known as MahaRERA), with a sample of one prominent builder's draft of "RERA-compliant Sales Agreement", and the issues contained in that draft. In it, I pointed out the various shortcomings of this draft, which were not only unfair to the flat-buyer, but also untruthful and unlawful.
Mr Chatterjee spared some time to meet me and explained that those aggrieved by such unfair agreements thrust upon them by any builder should complain online after registering themselves as complainants on this website: https://maharerait.mahaonline.gov.in/login/UserRegistration , and file a complaint, accompanied by fees of Rs 5,000/-, which will then be heard by the Regulatory Authority or the Adjudicating Authority.

For the guidance of flat-owners and investors, I have reproduced below the letter that I submitted to Mr Chatterjee. 

Best Wishes,
Sulaiman Bhimani

To

Shri Gautam Chatterjee,
Chairman, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
3rd Floor, A-Wing, Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051.
Sub: Builders are making a mockery of MahaRERA

Dear Sir,

My activist friends and I are impressed by your deep knowledge and hard work. I have faith in Maharashtra’s Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

However, the common people do not have such faith. People feel that MahaRERA will fail to make builders deal fairly with the common man. They feel that builders will stick to their bad old ways. There are many reasons people’s lack of faith. One major reason is builders are taking RERA very lightly. Even after MahaRERA came into force, builders are still forcing home buyers to sign agreements containing outright lies and many clauses that are against the buyers’ interests. Here is Exhibit A  https://tinyurl.com/Ekta-MahaRera-Agreement

This is the Agreement draft of Ekta Tripolis, Goregaon, and is supposedly compliant with RERA. It is almost identical with agreement formats uploaded on MahaRERA website for other registered projects of the builder group called Ekta, owned and headed by Mr Ashok Mohanani. You are not pulling up this big builder for ramming such an agreement down the throats of home buyers, so why will the common man have any faith in MahaRERA?

Unfair & Untrue Clauses in Ekta builder’s “RERA Agreement”:
1) This “standard clause” is generally a false claim. Pg 12: "(cc) On demand from the Allottee, the Promoter has given inspection to the Allottee of all the documents of title relating to the said Land… and the plans, designs and specifications prepared by the Promoter's Architects… and of such other documents as are specified under the RERA and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder."

2) Allottees who may have paid as much as 100% of the consideration are today being told to falsely state that they have only paid 10%. Pg 15: "(iv) The Allottee has paid before execution of this Agreement, a sum of Rs. [●]/- (Rupees [●] only) (which does not exceed 10% of the Sale Consideration) as advance payment … "

3) This clause completely disempowers the buyer. Pg 16: "Time for payment of each installment is the essence of the contract. The Allottee hereby agrees, confirms and undertakes that an intimation forwarded by the Promoter, that a particular stage of construction is commenced or completed shall be sufficient proof that a particular stage of construction is completed. However, it is agreed that non receipt of such intimation requiring such payment shall not be a plea or an excuse by the Allottee for non-payment of any amount or amounts..."

4) This clause threatens to dispossess the buyer even if he pays the full consideration. "...Any payments made in favour of any other account other than mentioned hereinabove shall not be treated as payment towards the said Flat/Shop/Office and shall be construed as a breach on the part of the Allottee, in which event without prejudice to the right of the Promoter to charge interest at the prevailing rate of State Bank of India Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate plus 2% thereon on the amounts due, the Promoter shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement and forfeit 10% of the Sale Consideration along with brokerage charges (if any) as reasonable, pre- estimated, genuine and agreed liquidated damages and return balance (if any) to the Allottee within 30 (thirty) days from the date of such termination of the Agreement." RERA does not authorize the builder to terminate the agreement unilaterally on such grounds.

5) RERA does not envisage such forfeits. Pg 18 - "7. Voluntary Cancellation By Allottee. In the event, the Allottee desire/s to cancel the allotment of said Flat/Shop/Office for any reason whatsoever, then Promoter shall be entitled to forfeit the amounts equivalent to 10% (ten per cent) of the Sale Consideration and the Allottee shall not be entitled to such amount paid by him/her/them/it to the Promoter."

6) These arbitrary clauses dominate the buyer psychologically and financially: Pg 20 - "Event Of Default And Consequences - (i) The Promoter shall be entitled (but not obliged) to terminate this Agreement on the happening of any of the following events (“Events of Default”): ...(e) If the Allottee is/are, convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude and/or is sentenced to imprisonment for any offence for not less than six months; (f) If Receiver and/or a Liquidator and/or Official Assignee or any person is appointed of the Allottee or in respect of all or any of the assets and/or properties of the Allottee. (g) If the Allottee have received any notice from the Government in India (either Central, State or Local) or foreign Government for the Allottee involvement in any money laundering or any illegal activity and/or is declared to be a proclaimed offender and/or a warrant is issued against him... (i) If the Allottee fail/s to make payment of any outgoing/s, taxes, maintenance charges etc…” How is the builder concerned with bankruptcy proceedings, moral turpitude, etc? How can such extraneous factors enable a builder to dispossess his customer?

7) Arbitrary “standard clauses” for suppressing the buyer. “(ii) On happening or occurring of any of the Event of Default, the Promoter shall without prejudice to all other rights that the Promoter may have against the Allottee either under this Agreement, or in law or otherwise, give 30 (thirty) days notice to the Allottee to rectify/remedy such breach and during the notice period, the Allottee shall be liable to bear and pay interest at the prevailing rate of State Bank of India Highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate plus 2% thereon on the due and payable amount. In the event Allottee fail/s to rectify/remedy the breach within notice period, then the Promoter shall be entitled (but shall not be obliged) to (i) forthwith terminate this Agreement (“Termination Date”) and (ii) forfeit/deduct all amounts mentioned in… above and balance if any, shall be refunded to the Allottee without any interest within 30 (thirty) days from the Termination Date. It is further clarified that any profit arising from sale of the said Flat/Shop/Office to the new Allottee shall be of the Promoter and the Allottee shall have no claim against the same."

Mr Chatterjee, Sir, such unlawful clauses may eventually be struck down if an allottee painstakingly challenges them, but in the meantime, they undermine public confidence in MahaRERA’s authority. Will you please promptly forbid such terrible agreement formats, and restore the people’s confidence? Sir, the public’s eyes are on you. Your actions must now speak louder than your words.

Yours sincerely,

Sulaiman Bhimani
RTI and Human Rights Activist
9323642081
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com

PS: After the onset of RERA, the older version of the agreement based on Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963 (MOFA) may seem obsolete. But it is not so, because thousands of flat-buyers have signed such agreements quite recently, and consider themselves bound by their clauses. Ekta’s “MOFA agreement” format is even more horrendous than the RERA agreement. See Exhibit B. https://tinyurl.com/Ekta-Tripolis-MOFA-Agreement

The horrendous clauses are elaborated here in Exhibit B2. https://tinyurl.com/Issues-in-Ekta-Agreement

For many years and decades, Ekta and such other builders have been spreading misinformation about the legal entitlements of flat-buyers. Mr Chatterjee, you now have jurisdiction to curb this. Will you please exercise your jurisdiction to the fullest?

 

Flouting of norms continues

Saturday, June 03, 2017
By Raju Vernekar

The Golden Chariot hotel and its sister concern Balaji Grand do not seem in the mood to take permissions of the concerned authorities before carrying out any activities in their premises

While the issue of the suspension of trade license of the Golden Chariot Hotel at Goregon, following a massive fire in December last year is still to be resolved, the Golden Chariot’s sister concern involved in similar irregularities has been continuing despite revocation of its license too.

A huge fire broke out at the Golden Chariot located at the Hub Mall, Goregon East, in December last and the management was accused of carrying out structural changes, in violation of the safety norms. The hotel’s Eating House trade License No. 761434569 was cancelled by the BMC. But, subsequently the Golden Chariot challenged the revocation of license.

After hearing the arguments advanced in the notice of motion, the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, vide his order dated April 13, 2017, stayed the suspension of the license till June 30, 2017. As such the Golden Chariot has continued with its routine business. Now, the matter is slated to come up for hearing on June 30, 2017.

It maybe recalled, that the application for trade license of the 'Golden Chariot Hospitality Services Private Limited' was rejected by the fire brigade on October 13, 2014, for not producing relevant documents and also due to the discrepancies in the documents. Subsequently, the license was granted to the hotel.

However, it has also come to light that Golden Chariot’s sister concern 'Balaji Grand' located in the same premises, also sails in the same boat. Based on a complaint by the Right To Information (RTI) activists Shaikh Fakruddin Juned and Sulaiman Bhimani, the Divisional Fire Officer (DFO) A V Bangar, vide his letter dated February 12, 2016 had directed 'Balaji Grand' not to carry out trade activities till all the safety norms are implemented. Subsequently the BMC’s Assistant Commissioner (P South) on December 1, 2016 had issued a show cause notice to 'Balaji Grand' asking why its trade license No. 887353104 should not be revoked.

But according to the complainants Shaikh and Bhimani, “Balaji Grand has been continuing its activities regardless of the action by the BMC and the fire department. The 'Balaji Grand' has obtained the trade license showing the operational area as 188.56 square mtrs, whereas the hotel was using 216 square mtrs area. Besides, it had kept very narrow passage of 2.8 mtrs for patrons to access wash rooms.

The hotel has also erected a loft over the kitchen area without obtaining the approval of the concerned authorities including the fire department, which was highly objectionable from the safety point of view. Also, the kitchen was not provided with a rear exit as per the requirement of the fire department’s No Objection Certificate (NOC) No. FBL/S/409/67 dated April 16, 2009 which was highly objectionable.

When contacted, the Balaji Grand officials maintained that a relevant explanation has been given and the documents are submitted to the concerned authorities. However, according to Shaikh and Bhimani, the stay granted for the Golden Chariot cannot be used as a blanket to cover the irregularities in Balaji Grand.

POSTED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Sulaiman Bhimani
9323642081
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com

Link to the news paper http://www.afternoondc.in/city-news/flouting-of-norms-continues/article_196342 

No plans to lodge FIR against suspended MMRDA officials A K Pahal a habitual offender

Mumbai
Even after flouting norms by issuing fake work experience certificates to help a private contractor bag a contract worth Rs 70 crore, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority has no plans to lodge a First Information Report against its engineers that were recently suspended. The engineers, A K Pahal and P K Veni, were suspended for forgery a fortnight ago.
According to the probe report, the suspended engineers had helped contractor, NA construction, by giving fake certificates to bag a storm water drain project in Haryana. The authority is currently probing into the matter on its departmental level. Officials said that all of the certificates issued by the suspended engineers will also be scrutinised in order to ascertain their involvement in other projects.
Interestingly, both the engineers have accepted their involvement in the forgery act. A senior MMRDA official on conditions of anonymity told the Free Press Journal, “We are conducting a departmental inquiry and will take further action on basis of the conclusion of the inquiry report. We are not planning to lodge an FIR but the officials will be thrown out of service.”
Activist Sulaiman Bhimani, who has filed numerous complaints of corruption against A K Pahal, alleged that Pahal used NA constructions as a proxy contractor for his son. He said, “This tender process was just an eyewash as the actual person who was supposed to carry out the project work was Pahal’s son. He had also attended the pre-bid meeting. Moreover, Veni is junior to Pahal and have signed the certificates on the latter’s orders.” Bhimani added that Haryana, where the storm water project was supposed to be carried out, is the home town of Pahal.
“I fail to understand the authority's denial in filing a police complaint and is still conducting a department inquiry despite of the fact that the engineers have already pleaded guilty,” Bhimani added.⁠⁠⁠⁠

Sagar Pillai Reporter of Free Press Journal 

POSTED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Sulaiman Bhimani 
9323642081 
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com 

A prominent builder filed a civil suit against my activist colleague Krish for publishing articles against the builder. Here's what Krish says about the suit:

Last weekend, I was served notice of a Civil Suit filed against myself and one more person (Mr Vineet Malik) by Ekta Parksville Homes Pvt. Ltd, ("Plaintiff"). In this present article, I intend to analyze the infirmities of (a) the civil suit no 36 of 2017 in Vasai Civil Court, (b) the temporary injunction passed by this court against me, and (c) the gag order sought against me under "Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC".
I believe that no law prevents me -- as a journalist, a citizen and a defendant -- from publicly analyzing the legal merits of a suit filed against me, and the legal merits of a temporary injunction that seeks to muzzle me without giving me notice and an opportunity to be heard. Not only is my Right To Freedom of Speech protected by the Constitution, but also, my Fundamental Duties urge me "to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform".
I consider it my duty as a journalist and a citizen to be rigid and unyielding on such points of principle. Hence, I have analysed the civil suit here:
Analysis of Ekta Builder's Civil Suit Against Me

8th May, 2017: Last week, I was served with notice of a Civil Suit filed against myself and one more person (Mr Vineet Malik) by Ekta Parksville Homes Pvt. Ltd, ("Plaintiff"). This civil suit filed in Vasai Civil Court attempts to gain the court's sympathy by mixing up several unrelated matters, and wrongly invokes the court's territorial jurisdiction to pass temporary injunction against Mr Malik ("Defendent no. 1") and myself ("Defendant no. 2"), in order to suppress certain truths about Ekta's way of doing business from becoming known to a wider public.
In this present article, I intend to analyze the infirmities of (a) the civil suit no 36 of 2017 in Vasai Civil Court, (b) the temporary injunction passed by this court against me, and (c) the gag order sought against me under "Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC". I sincerely believe that no law prevents me -- as a journalist, a citizen and a defendant -- from publicly analyzing the legal merits of a suit filed against me, and the legal merits of a temporary injunction that seeks to muzzle me without giving me notice and an opportunity to be heard. Not only is my Right To Freedom of Speech protected by the Constitution, but also, my Fundamental Duties urge me "to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform". I consider it my duty as a journalist and a citizen to be rigid and unyielding on such points of principle.
Click here to read the CIVIL SUIT NOTICE sent to me by Ekta builders and later, the court bailiff.
One may ask why I am named as defendant no. 2 in this suit which is primarily between a builder and a flat purchaser. The short answer is: because I wrote the below articles about this particular flat-purchase deal, published them on my blog and also issued them as press releases:
(a) Ekta Builder: Broken Promises & Bhai-giri
(b) Delayed Ekta Parksville: Builder offers full refund plus 9% interest but...
In the words of the plaintiff, according to paragraph no. 54 (page 25) of the civil suit, "the cause of action to file this suit arose for the first time when Plaintiff on 3rd December, 2016 accepted the offer of Defendant No. 1 to terminate the Agreement dated 30/05/2016..., secondly it arose when the Defendant No. 1 failed to accept the refund amount and to execute and register a Deed of cancellation of Agreement... It arose thirdly on _________ when the Defendants published defamatory article for the first time, and lastly on _________ when the Defendants again published 2nd defamatory article. It is continuous cause of action..."
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THIS SUIT & ORDER:
  1. As you can see from this Causelist, this civil suit is filed under Specific Relief Act 1963, Section 34 and 38. A plain reading of this Act and the relevant sections shows that the only purpose of this Act is the enforcement of contractual obligations. As a journalist writing articles, I have no contractual obligations to the builder ("plaintiff") who has filed this suit. The plaintiff has a contractual dispute with Mr Vineet Malik, and the subject of the dispute is the "suit flat". On page 3 of the civil suit , under the head, "Description of suit property", what is mentioned is "Flat bearing No. 1104 admeasuring approximately 35.60 square metres... in the phase known as Brooklyn Park in the complex known as Ekta Parksville... hereinafter referred to as the "suit flat")". Hence, there is no justification for my inclusion in this suit under the Specific Relief Act, as I have nothing to do with the suit flat, which is the subject of the said suit. I am wrongly and malafidely named in this civil suit. My inclusion is a misjoinder.
  2. Ekta builder ("The Plaintiff") states in paragraph no. 43 that he is "entitled to claim compensation and damages from the Defendants... The plaintiff has suffered monetary loss to the extent of Rs One Hundred Crore... as a result of false and negative public campaign undertaken by the Defendant No. 2 at the behest and in connivance with the Defendant no. 1". If this is so, then Ekta builder is required to provide some proof as to why my writings are "false" and also how he has calculated this grand figure of Rs 100 crore. However, the builder provides no coherent arguments or proofs to substantiate his claims, but he prays for the sweeping reliefs that the court should "Hold and declare that the Defendants have defamed the Plaintiff" (paragraph e on page 27), and seeks a permanent injunction restraining me from publishing anything about any of the Ekta concerns (paragraph h on page 28), besides of course, my paying him damages of Rs 100 crore jointly and collectively with Mr Malik.
  3. Nearly two months BEFORE this notice was served to me, the plaintiff's advocate Avinash Vidwans informed me by email that "Sir, The Hon'ble Civil Judge (S.D.) at Vasai was pleased to pass following Order in Special Civil Suit No. 36 of 2017 , wherein you are Defendant No. 2.: ORDER Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Vidwans for Plaintiff.  Ld. Adv. Ms. Sheetal Pandya appears for Def.No.1 in pursuance of email notice sent to her by the Plaintiff.  She has placed on record an undertaking at Exh.10 to not to publish any defamatory material against the Plaintiff till next date. Ld. Advocate for Plaintiff has relied upon certain e-mails sent by Defendant No.2 in reply to Plaintiff’s mail thereby indicating that the Defendant No.2 will regardless of any matter sub-judice proceed to publish two alleged stories against the Plaintiff.  It is argued that the Defendant No.2 has made up his mind against the Plaintiff in a prejudiced and biased manner.  The e-mails are self-speaking.  Hence, it is deemed fit to temporarily restrain the Defendant No.2 from making any such publication which may contain any defamatory material against the Plaintiff till next date or till he appears on the next regular scheduled date. The Plaintiff has made out an urgency and hence it is desirable that the triable issue be set at rest through the intervention of the Court. Plaintiff to communicate the Order to Defendant No.2 and also to effect service of suit summons upon him, if not done earlier."
    Here are my views regarding the legality of the above quoted order: 
    (a) Freedom of Speech and the freedom of Press cannot be so lightly trampled by a mere Civil Judge. My legal commonsense says that every Civil Court cannot enjoy the necessary jurisdiction to pass such such a weighty order, which is a blanket gag nullifying a fundamental right. Only the High Court can have such a jurisdiction.
    (b) Even assuming Vasai Civil Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction, such an order cannot be passed so lightly, without serving proper notice and without giving defendants an opportunity to be heard. Such a weighty order cannot be passed based on printouts of emails produced by the plaintiff, without even seeking to verify from me whether it is true or not!
    (c) The suit has been filed, but it has not yet been admitted by the court. It cannot be automatically admitted, without seeking answers to crucial questions about where exactly the dispute and the cause of action arose, determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court, etc. Not even a single proper hearing has happened for establishing the jurisdiction of this court, and whether the parties named in it are correctly imp-leaded. If a gag order can be passed at such a preliminary stage by a Civil Judge, then the mass media and social media throughout the country can be brought to a grinding halt by every Tom, Dick and Harry seeking such temporary injunctions.
    (d) If journalists start getting muzzled so lightly with so little due process, then it will cause grievous injury to our nation, as all kinds of blanket muzzling orders will be sought by wrongdoers. For me, journalism is a calling, a way of life, and not just a way of earning my daily bread. I cannot, in good conscience, bring myself to obey such an badly-formed judicial order.
  4. This suit that Ekta has filed is not a defamation suit; it is a mixed-up and confused suit. This suit is under the "Specific Relief Act" for performance of contractual duties, and it does not argue even one point as to why my writings are defamatory; it only relies on the bland assertion that whatever I have written is defamatory and derogatory. I would invite the builder to file a proper defamation suit against me, wherein the exact material that I have published would have to be closely examined in court. Let us stop being vague and get into the particulars of my so-called defamation. In a civil defamation suit, I would be given ample opportunity to prove that each and every one of my statements is true and based on facts and documents, and also that my writings are intended to warn and protect the public against exploitation by a builder. I want to be given that opportunity.
  5. Non-applicability of Plaintiff's Application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC to my case: Let us understand what is this Order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.
    "1.Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-
    (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
    (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors,
    [(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,]
    the Court may be order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders."

    In short, temporary Injunction under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC is for protecting contractual obligations or interests in a suit relating to a disputed property. Can this rule be invoked for muzzling a journalist who has no contractual ties with the plaintiff? I seriously doubt it.

    WHY THIS SUIT IS MALA-FIDE:

  • This civil suit is a hotchpotch of three distinct kinds of civil suits that cannot be mixed.  This civil suit attempts to blur the clear lines between a suit for: (a) enforcement of a contract between two parties (b) resolving a dispute (c) seeking damages for defamation  and resultant loss of business, and seeking legal protection from further defamation.
  • This civil suit creates a false narrative that a huge complicated contractual relationship exists between Mr Malik and Ekta.The fact of the matter is, their contractual relationship is simple -- that of a flat-purchaser with a builder who failed to honour his contractual obligation to give timely possession of a flat in Virar, complete with Occupation Certificate.  Everything else is just hot air.
  • The suit seeks to divert attention from the fact that the terms of cancellation offered by the builder were rejected by Mr Malik, and, as the original Flat Purchase Agreement has yet not been cancelled, this agreement is the only one that is enforceable by law, and the builder is in breach of it. This civil suit tries to abuse the court mechanism to force Mr Malik, virtually at gun-point, to accept the builder's terms for cancellation of the flat-purchase agreement, by which he is currently bound.
  • Although this is a suit filed under Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff (Ekta) does not specifically name any existing contract that he wants enforced through the court. Ekta implies several obligations of the defendants to himself, without actually specifying which contract confers such obligationss. The current civil suit is therefore, in a nutshell, malafide, frivolous, vexatious and deserving of being dismissed at the admission stage itself, with costs if possible.
Can writing and publishing this present article be considered as Contempt of Court – whether Civil or Criminal? Can it be considered defamatory? Can it be considered a violation of the temporary injunction of the Civil Court? I would very much like the builder to present this before the Hon'ble Civil Judge, and I would invite the learned Judge to apply his judicial mind to every word of this article. If the Hon'ble Civil Court, in its great wisdom, feels that this constitutes Defamation, Contempt etc., I will be quite happy to stand trial for it.
DISCLAIMER: I am writing this as an independent journalist and blogger, on my own behalf. I am NOT upholding Mr Vineet Malik's case, and I don't care what stand he or his defense lawyers choose to take. I haven't earned a paisa from Mr Malik, and I have no personal interest in his business dealings with Ekta or anyone else. Nor do I have any personal enmity and ill-will towards Ekta builders. At the core of this present article is my burning curiosity to find out whether freedom of speech is really protected in our beloved country, or whether such protection is lightly cast aside by frivolous civil suits and temporary injunctions without so much as a notice, let alone a hearing.
ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST
Krishnaraj Rao

9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

 
POSTED IN PUBLIC INTEREST
Sulaiman Bhimani
9323642081

FIR against Directors Anubhav, Gukul & Saranga Aggarwal of RNA builders for duping buyers EOW not arresting the Accused.

The buyers claim that RNA Corp has been delaying handing over possession of apartments at Kalina complex for seven years

The Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai police have filed an FIR against a leading property developer for allegedly duping over 150 buyers.The complainants have alleged that the directors of RNA Corp and its associates have interminably delayed handing over possession of apartments booked by them at the developer's project in Kalina in 2010.The buyers claim that they have already paid around 70% of the money for apartments at RNA Address that were priced between Rs 1.5 crore and Rs 3 crore.

The builder, they said, had initially promised them possession in 2014, but has been delaying the handover claiming to have failed to acquire necessary permissions from the BMC. According to the buyers, in March 2013, after completing the third slab, the builder informed them that work would remain suspended until additional approvals were obtained within a few months.Further enquiries over the next couple of years, right until last year, were deflected by the builder, who kept blaming the civic body for taking time to grant approvals. Earlier this year, some of the exasperated buyers made enquiries with bodies such as MHADA and MCGM about the status of the project, and said they were surprised to find that RNA had not made certain payments with respect to the pending approvals.

Pradeep Banerjee, a director at an MNC, who has brought three apartments in the complex, told Mirror that the buyers were tired of RNA's excuses. “Every time we approach the builder he comes up with some excuse or the other. All promises made by the builder have been proven to be fake.“ Ashish Verma, another buyer, claimed that the police were delaying taking action against the builder. “Earlier the FIR was registered with Kherwadi police, and now EOW has filed the FIR on the same complaint. It's been four days since the FIR has been registered and no action has been taken. Instead of arresting the accused, the cops are asking for original documents from us.All these are delaying tactics. The delay in the handover of the flats, said advocate Ameet Mehta, who is representing the buyers, was severely inconveniencing several of them. “It's been seven years, and many buyers are senior citizens.“

An EOW official, involved in the investigations, said, “The scam could involve over Rs 100 crore. Statements are being recorded and suitable action will be taken soon.“

Anubhav Agarwal, a director at RNA, said “These are people with malicious intentions. We had moved court also because of such intentions. The delay in the project was due to us not getting permissions on time. The court is yet to pass an order on the same. The case is subjudice. Meanwhile, we can't understand how the cops can file a case against us. We will challenge the same in court.“