Skip to content

"Victims of RNA Corp." OR Victims of Any Unscrupulous Builder, What are the options available for Home Buyer and Aggrieved Flat Owners in Redevelopment Project

How to File a  against a Builder, What are the options available 

Any citizen can file a case against a developer. There are several options and situations under which a property buyer can file a complaint. Types of complaints are:

  1. EOW
  2. Consumer case
  3. Suit for Specific Performance of Contract

On the following grounds in which a property buyer can drag an incompetent property developer on violations/ breach of ground

  • Non-execution of relevant sale agreement despite having received a substantial advance amount
  • Non-issuance of copies of all relevant documents viz.; development agreement, power of attorney, sanctioned plan (by concerned Regional Authorities), specification of construction materials/design as per sanctioned plan and any other relevant documents
  • Charged higher than the agreed amount
  • No issuance of proper receipt(s) against the paid amount
  • Poor quality construction
  • Delivering of a house not complying to agreed specifications
  • No free parking space within the premises
  • Did not form a co-operative housing society and handed over to members
  • Non-provision of water storage tank
  • Non-provision of proper ventilation and light
  • Delayed possession beyond the stipulated time limit
  • Not obtaining completion certificate from the concerned registered (by the authorities) architect
  • Non-issuance of Occupancy Certificate at the time of delivery of respective flats/house to its occupants
  • Non-declaration of expenses against which the developer collected money

And many more…

Any project falling short of above listed causes home buyers to approach for remedy from options available 1 to 5 

1) Cheating Case (EOW) - Jointly or Individually Legal Complaint

2) Cheating Case (EOW) with Private Complaint to the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM)

3) Specific Performance in High Court

4) National Commission if agreement value is more than 1 Crore (New Delhi)

5) State Consumer if agreement value is less than 1 Crore (Mumbai)

How to file a complaint against a builder in the Consumer Court? 

With builders coming under the clause of being a service provider, the process of filing a consumer court complaint against them is the same as with other service providers. To file a complaint, you need to adhere to the following steps:

  • Send a well drafted Legal Notice to the builder stating your reasons of discontent
  • Await for a response for the stipulated time from the other party
  • On no-response, prepare a petition stating facts and evidences with the help of expert legal advice
  • Approach the Consumer Court and file your petition against the builder

As per a judgement passed by the National Commission in the case of Jayantabhai Ranka and Arunaben Kapadia vs Ravi Developers, the Commission pointed out that the cause of action on the builder continues till the allotment of the site or full refund of money on refusal to allot.

This means, no matter how much the delay, the builder is liable to properly honour his service agreement. The other important point that this particular case also highlighted is that ‘each property developer is liable to execute an  agreement for sale’. And failure to do so can be a cause of action against the builder in the Consumer Court.

You may simultaneously approach EOW with legal advice along with Consumer Court Case

1) Cheating Case (EOW) - Jointly or Individually Legal Complaint

2) Cheating Case (EOW) with Private Complaint to the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM)

This option of specific performance in High Court is little expensive but result oriented all you need a good Advocate and result can be expected in 4 to 8 months where as in consumer court it may take 12 to 24 months

This option is expensive as you have to pay court fees the upper cap of the court fee is Rs 3 Lakh the court fee structure calculation table is given for your reference

COURT FEE SLABS

SLAB-A = FIRST RS. 15,00,000 --------------------------------------- RS 31,230.

SLAB-B = RS. 15,00,001 TO RS. 26,00,000-------@RS 2,000/RS 1,00,000.

SLAB-C =ABOVE RS. 26,00,000------------------------@RS1,200/RS 1,00,000.

SLAB-D = FIXED -------------------------------------------------------------RS 200

e.g. COURT FEES FOR RS. 30,00,000, 40,00,000, 50,00,000, 75,00,000 AND 1,00,00,000 ETC. CAN BE CALCULATED AS UNDER:- 

VALUESLAB-ASLAB-BSLAB-CSLAB-DTOTAL

(A+B+C+D)

30,00,00031,23022,000 4,80020058,230
40,00,00031,23022,00016,80020070,230
50,00,00031,23022,00028,80020082,230
75,00,00031,23022,00058,8002001,12,230
1,00,00,00031,23022,00088,8002001,42,230

For Court Orders in Favor of Home Buyers and Aggrieved Flat Owners in Redevelopment Project  click the link below
http://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.in/2016/09/consumer-court-case-order-in-favor-of.html 

http://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.in/2016/03/hc-pulls-up-aa-estate-pvt-ltd-arm-of.html

Issued in Public Interest by
Sulaiman Bhimani
9323642081
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com 

RNA Cartoon

20th September, 2016, Cuttack: Justice Indrajit Mahanty – the second-seniormost judge of Orissa High Court -- hears cases and gives orders that enrich his brother Biswajit Mohanty, a well-known lobbyist for private educational institutions. Justice I Mahanty's many interim orders are in alignment with the commercial and political interests of his brother. Judges are expected to recuse himself from hearing cases where their kith and kin's interests are involved, but Justice Indrajit Mahanty overrides such niceties without batting an eyelid.

Indrajit Mahanty and Biswajit Mohanty are both sons of Barrister Ranjit Mohanty, and are both inheritors of the Barrister Ranjit Mohanty Group of Institutions. While Indrajit Mahanty is not directly hands-on in the education business, Biswajit Mohanty is chairman of the BRM Trust and runs many private educational institutes such as BRM International Institute of Technology (BRM-IIT). Biswajit Mohanty is also a trade unionist and lobbyist, who heads Odisha Technical College Association (OTCA), which lobbies for filling up more seats in such colleges, along with Odisha Private Engineering College Association (OPECA). OPECA files public interest litigations, writ petitions etc, while OTCA and Biswajit Mahanty maintain a slightly low-key presence. While their lobbying poses as championing the students' rights, bear in mind that more filled-up seats means fatter profits for Biswajit Mohanty and his fellow "educationists".

For the past 7-8 years, OTCA and OPECA are at loggerheads with Orissa state government, which is keen on making the CBSE-conducted Joint Entrance Examinations (JEE) the only criterion for filling engineering seats. The Orissa High Court division bench headed by Justice Indrajit Mahanty has leaned in favour of OTCA and OPECA.In 2014, Supreme Court stayed Orissa High Court's orders for holding a special JEE i.e. OJEE, but in 2014, 2015 and 2016, the high court division bench (which inevitably had Justice Indrajit Mahanty even while other judges, like Justice DP Choudhury and Justice BK Nayak, changed), ordered that a special OJEE (Orissa JEE) be conducted for seats remaining vacant after the JEE (Mains) counselling. 

 

It is strange that although news items regularly appear about what Biswajit Mohanty says about JEE, and what orders Justice Indrajit Mahanty passes about JEE for that particular academic year, the media takes care to avoid mentioning the two brothers names in the same news item! The public may be fooled by this conspiracy of silence, but political parties are not fooled. Recognizing the value of his demonstrated power to sway the high court, BJP lovingly embraced "Pugi-bhai" Biswajit Mohanty in 2015, amist loud drama-baazi.

Being highly educated, intellectual and articulate, Judge Indrajit Mahanty understands the conflict of interest in hearing cases tied up with his brother's business. With open eyes, Justice I Mahanty keeps dishonouring his constitutional oath of office, whereby he swore to serve the country "without fear of favour". Thankfully, whistleblowers are giving us lots of documents to build up a convincing case for impeaching this Orissa High Court judge.

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Posted By

Sulaiman Bhimani 
9323642081
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com 
Attachments area

7th September, 2016, Cuttack: Earlier this week, Justice Indrajit Mahanty of Orissa High Court admitted that he "carries a loan burden for his long-time business outfit", through an opinion piece that was written on his behalf titled "Media sensation at times hits great guys, hurts society" in The Pioneer. (The "loan burden" is a Rs 2.5 crore working-capital loan for his hotel, The Triple C, which was borrowed in 2009 from SBI. Till this day, amounts ranging between one and two lakh rupees are drawn and repaid every month in the name of "Justice Indrajit Mahanty".) The author, clearly adores Justice Mahanty, writes, "As a lawyer, he became too eminent too soon only because of his keen commonsense, command over the English language and the superb manner of making complex Acts simple for judges and clients alike. He drives points home the same way as smart kids do tricycles." The point of the article is that it is acceptable that Justice Indrajit Mahanty has a big business loan to his name, and runs a hotel, because of his love for humanity, and therefore, our article questioning the ethics of his actions is a "terribly misplaced allegation". The author argues, "Yes, there is a loan burden, not a robbery charge. Yes, he ran it to add value by generating employment for many. The only thing people would like to know is whether or not his ‘judicial conduct is appropriate and above board’; whether or not he is selling judgment, and if he has the knowledge and skills to help the suffering humanity."

Is this a reasonable argument?

The implications of a high judge taking a business loan from a bank, and using it to run a hotel, are far-reaching. Although Justice I. Mahanty is only 55 years old, he is already number two in seniority at Orissa High Court. Being the son of well-known Barrister Ranjit Mohanty, he is influential and well-connected in the legal fraternity. In the next 5-10 years, his career track can make him Chief Justice of Orissa HC, a Supreme Court judge and even Chief Justice Of India.

The Triple-C Hotel can be need not necessarily be a success story. Experienced businessmen like Vijay Mallya often fail to repay the banks; so, is it totally improbable that a part-time businessman like Indrajit Mahanty may fail to pay back what he owes to State Bank Of India?

However, The Triple-C Hotel can be need not necessarily be a success story. Experienced businessmen like Vijay Mallya often fail to repay the banks; so, is it totally improbable that a part-time businessman like Indrajit Mahanty may fail to pay back what he owes to State Bank Of India?

What happens if Justice Indrajit Mahanty defaults and the matter goes to Debt Recovery Tribunal?

  1. Does Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) get jurisdiction over Justice Indrajit Mahanty?How will Justice Mahanty (who may by then be Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, a Supreme Court judge even Chief Justice of India) be an appellant or defendant before DRT or DRAT?

  2. Does Justice Indrajit Mahanty appear before Orissa High Court?Suppose the order of DRAT is further appealed, can Justice Indrajit Mahanty be an appellant or defendant before Orissa High Court? If not, then what is the proper forum to hear the matter?

  3. Can any tribunal or lower court entertain a matter against any judge of the higher judiciary in respect of his private affairs, such as bank loans or hotel business? Will such proceedings strengthen his public image as a judge, or will it damage it? And what will such cases do to the image of the judiciary?

  4. If a high court or supreme court judge is before a lower court or tribunal, what happens to his superior jurisdiction over such lower court or tribunal? Won't this create a constitutional anomaly?

Apologists and admirers of Justice Indrajit Mahanty, please remember that this is not about one man's goodness or integrity, it is about the integrity of our judiciary as a whole.

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Posted By

Sulaiman Bhimani

94323642081

sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com

 

2

Cuttack, 2nd September 2016: Justice Indrajit Mahanty became a judge of Orissa High Court in 2006, and he became a hotelier in 2009. Activist Jayanta Das broke the story on 8th August with documentary evidence given by judiciary whistleblowers. Kamyab TV, an Oriya TV channel, held a panel debate on this issue. In our press release issued three days ago, we asked whether it was ethical for any high court judge to be a businessman.

Justice I. Mahanty maintained a stony silence but on his behalf, the management of his hotel, The Triple C, issued a denial in The Indian Expresson the same day as our press release. The Triple C Hotel's press statement contradicts the signed affidavit of Justice I. Mahanty himself, and it actually makes this high court judge's actions look totally mysterious!

MYSTERY #1. The Indian Express story says, "A spokesperson of Latest Generation Entertainment Pvt Limited (LGPL), which entered into a 15-year pact with Justice Indrajit Mohanty, clarified that lease/rent agreement for “Triple C” was signed in August, 2007. Chartered Accountant of LGPL R Sharma said possession of the property was handed over to the company in 2009 and it has been running the hotel ever since. LGPL has been paying lease rental for the premises after accounting for the income tax." And later on, it says, "Besides, the accusations that working capital had been availed for running hotel were found to be untrue as neither LGPL nor Justice Mohanty had taken any. Instead, a term loan was secured in 2007 for construction of the building. Application for an additional term loan was made in 2009 which was approved later in the year by State Bank of India."

But this begs the question: Why is Justice Indrajit Mahanty servicing a working capital loan of Rs 2.5 cr from State Bank of India, which he took in his own name in February 2009? Read SBI's loan sanction letter issued on 16th Feb 2009 in the name of Justice Indrajit Mahanty himself (and not in the name of Latest Generation Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.) See below image:

Why is Justice Indrajit Mahanty servicing a working capital loan of Rs 2.5 cr from State Bank of India, which he took in his own name in February 2009? Read SBI's loan sanction letter issued on 16th Feb 2009 in the name of Justice Indrajit Mahanty himself (and not in the name of Latest Generation Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.)

Also, why is Justice I. Mahanty (and not the hotel management company) withdrawing and repaying lakhs of rupees every month? Read the bank statements showing drawals and repayments as recent as May 2015. See below image:

If not from The Triple C Hotel, from what source of income does Justice Indrajit Mahanty pay amounts like Rs 2 lakh every month? And if not for working capital of the hotel, for what purpose does Justice I. Mahanty withdraw lakhs of rupees every month? Will his lordship kindly clarify this?

If not from The Triple C Hotel, from what source of income does Justice Indrajit Mahanty pay amounts like Rs 2 lakh every month? And if not for working capital of the hotel, for what purpose does Justice I. Mahanty withdraw lakhs of rupees every month? Will his lordship kindly clarify this?

MYSTERY #2: The Indian Express story says: "Contrary to the allegations that Justice Mohanty got record of rights of the land in 2006, available documents revealed that the land on which the hotel is located was purchased on October 16, 1981 by Barrister Ranjit Mohanty for his son, Justice Mohanty."

In that case, did Justice Indrajit Mahanty tell a lie in his affidavit? Why did he state, "That I have obtained a plot of land by way of Court Decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, first Court, Cuttack, in Title Suit no. 297 of 1981" Why didn't he mention anything about purchase of land by his father Barrister Ranjit Mahanty? See below image:

Did Justice Indrajit Mahanty tell a lie in his affidavit? Why did he state, "That I have obtained a plot of land by way of Court Decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, first Court, Cuttack, in Title Suit no. 297 of 1981" Why didn't he mention anything about purchase of land by his father Barrister Ranjit Mahanty?

The Indian Express story concludes by saying: "Sharma said the attacks on the hotel are not only baseless but also motivated and have adversely affected its functioning."

Mr Sharma, do you really imagine that any of this is about the hotel? Oh come on, get real! It's not about The Triple C Hotel, and no, it's not about one over-privileged person named Indrajit Mahanty either. This is about the judiciary and its functioning, and the fundamental right of 1.3 billion citizens of India to be served by judges who are genuinely impartial and unbiased.

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Posted By Sulaiman Bhimani

9323642081

sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com

10

One does not have to defend the absurd in order to respect a person. Objecting to the absurdity of declaring Mother Teresa a saint does not mean disrespect for her work.

Today, Pope Francis declared Mother Teresa a saint. This naturally resulted in a flood of praise and criticism on social media. Contrary to the respectful tweet from the Prime Minister on the occasion, his supporters were NOT happy. They were critics of this step. In their eyes, she is fraudulent, and worst of all, she engaged in conversions (the prime majority fundamentalist objection to religious minority figures in India).

Those who admired Saint Teresa (must get used to not calling her Mother Teresa now) had their own reasons to cheer the long awaited development. In their eyes, her service to the poor and ill made her deserving of respect. Incidentally, this is something nurses in hospitals do routinely and get far less money for it than Mother Teresa got in donations for her cause. Nor do the see the service as a part of promoting their cause. Which does not negate the fact that she did serve like countless other organizations and people dedicated to service. Baba Amte, for example.

I don't have a problem with religious conversions. In fact, I have often said in the past that the poor must be allowed to change religion as often as they wish and religious organizations wanting to increase numbers for their religion should be encouraged to pay them to convert and/or stay in the religion. This beats a lot of hatred and violence in the name of religion and would probably do something constructive for a change.

While there are disturbing questions about Mother Teresa's ethics raised separately by several people, I think no one is perfect and if she had rendered significant service to mankind, it stands independent of criticism in other areas. Today is not necessarily a day for deliberate drawing out of every flaw, real or perceived that she had. In my view, regardless of the questions raised about her, her influence and role model for people was almost entirely one of service - which is not a bad thing.

My problem is with "Saint" and "miracles" that are required to declare a saint. The two "miracles" that proved her a saint were serious medical conditions that got "miraculously" cured by praying to her. To become a saint, the miracles have to be "scientifically inexplicable". However let us not underestimate the refusal of a mind to understand explanations, which are inconvenient to what is desired. These "miracles" have been robustly contested by rationalists and doctors. I will not get into them here, because this article is not about the miracles either - even if inexplicable healings happened.

Hospitals, the world over are replete with stories of "miraculous recoveries" that doctors have no explanations for beyond having tried their best, and yet no one has bothered to declare them places of supernatural occurrence. Sachin Kalbag, the editor of Mid-Day The Hindu, recently had a close brush with death and "miraculously" survived. His post delves beautifully into his contemplations on divine intervention as several unlikely coincidences happened that improved his chances of survival.

If a person who prayed to Mother Teresa made a miraculous recovery and a hundred who prayed to her did not, why is only one of them proof of a miracle? This was a woman routinely surrounded by the sick and dying, for whom she offered care (including medical) for decades and yet such a motivated effort found two miracles. After she died. What about the many who died? Are they proof of her NOT being inclined to save people more than inclined? Could it be that miracles started happening once her influence was gone from the world? What if someone had a freak road accident and died after meeting her? Would she be declared a malicious entity?

Selective vision is a wonderful, perception affirming thing. We see what we are looking for. You see cures in a hospital, miracles in a place of worship Even if 2000 people made unexpected recoveries in a hospital while only 2 did in the saint's worship.

 

India is a country prone to belief in the supernatural. Partly because of a rich mythology, but largely because belief is the only thing a lot of people can afford when faced with very expensive needs, wants and problems. And yet, praying to Mother Teresa is NOT an appropriate course of action if you are diagnosed with a tumor or brain abscesses.

"Saint Teresa" is not about ill people finding care in her organization, or poor and ill people finding free treatment in her memory, it is about ill people being saved by praying to her. This is my problem.

For anyone living in India, miraculous cures are nothing new. Loads of Hindi films have them, usually when the villain is wiping the floor with the hero and just before the climax. Every family has a deity or three (or a more modern guru or mata they find) to pray to when things go wrong. From Baba Ramdev curing homosexuality to homeopathy curing cancer. From quacks taking people off necessary drugs because they "conflict" with their treatment to "faith healing" events in various churches. "Miracle cures" are a staple in India. There is nothing new about them. Why two miracles make a saint should be a question that even the most gullible believer in miracle cures must ask.

Does the canonization of Mother Teresa to Saint Teresa over two piddly miracles mean that the church admits that the countless faith healing events churning out "miracle cures" every week are bogus? I do hope so. It is overdue.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I had felt compelled to meet Narendra Dabholkar once, after knowing his views for years. I liked what he was doing. What he said. I agreed with his views about the dangers of superstition. We had a long talk, and he suggested that I become a member of their organization. I was ambiguous. I had a baby who was quite young. I had things I was doing. Not really time enough to get into stuff like that you know, I, who was writing an average of three posts a week on this blog (but not about rationalism), told the chap who quit his medical practice for such "stuff" because he had the foresight to see how the erosion of reason ruined us as a whole. I myself had a live and let live approach, even though I understood what he did, to debunk superstition and spread awareness of rationalism was necessary work. I participated in religious ceremonies though I thought they were bullshit and ineffective for whatever claimed purpose they were being conducted. I listened to people talk about various miracle workers while making no effort to encourage them to think things through.

"What is the harm?" I thought. People believed whatever would bring them solace. I remained in touch with ANS (Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti) articles and news though I didn't interact with them much. I liked what they had to say, but I wasn't "active" about my rationalism. Then, one day, I was numb. Reading news of Dabholkar being shot dead. Reading countless people on social media share his work, his views. I was one of them. I remembered his patient, extremely reasonable manner of explaining things. He was dead. What a waste. There are very grudging token attempts to nail his murderers. No real will behind them. Who would offend bastions of BELIEF? What was "justice" anyway? How could punishing a person or five compensate for the loss to people at large?

"There is real harm." It was an expensive lesson. The silence of those who didn't bother to work for necessary change, who didn't want the inconvenience of offending people is what made sitting ducks of those who were doing good work. Pick off the voices, and silence dissent.

Belief in superstition is not just about faith, it is about controlling the gullible and it has a dark underbelly. The pretty side is where countless people find hope, as they look at a few well publicized miracles and play an emotional lottery hoping for a similar result, taking it as "luck" when the expected result doesn't happen. The dark side is what happens to those who say "The Emperor has no clothes". And Narendra Dabholkar is hardly the only one to face the ire of religious fanatics for trying to bring a voice of sanity.

Before someone says that it is the Hindu fanatics who killed Dabholkar, let me remind you of Sanal Edamaruku, an Indian rationalist who had to flee the country for the crime of debunking a "miracle". 

This isn't  matter of being polite and not insulting someone who did "good work", it is a matter of actively speaking up against wholesale encouragement to believe in the irrational, to stand up and be among the number of people who have a problem with the promotion of such beliefs, before the few who do it remain the standing ducks to be picked off one by one, like Dabholkar was, Pansare was, and open threats could be issued.... while the rest pretend to believe in rational thought but choose polite evasions and be "goody goody" rather than look bad disagreeing about "respect" of a "good person".

You may afford to think that oh, you like Mother Teresa, therefore you will not look too closely at why she is being called a saint. Today is your day off for skeptical enquiry because it is a special absurd occasion. After all, in this world of selfish people, is it not a miracle someone wants to help people at all? You may afford to encourage a view that helping those in need is something only a saint is capable of (and thus exempt yourselves from having to do anything). You may say, oh it is a pity that people who question superstition get murdered and I promise to be extra skeptical tomorrow. I was like that. I learned my lesson with Dabholkar's murder. It is one I won't forget in a hurry.

Respecting selfless service ought to be good enough for you to not be required to defend the absurd either.

Update: A lot of people have commented on Twitter that the miracles were a formality and the recognition is for her work. Personally, I think the recognition is more about the church having people of worship native to India, so that more people are interested. It is a huge market, you know? But all that apart, there was nothing wrong with respecting Mother Teresa, or declaring her a Saint without the miracles too. Contrary to the belief of the few "rationalists" clinging desperately to this belief of the miracles being a formality, you have the usually sane Outlook Magazine reporting on how the devout still feel her presence, etc. Let us not even pretend that the "devout" don't pray to saints to solve problems. Not even you are that gullible.