Skip to content

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

Friday, 9 December 2016

Delayed Ekta Parksville: Builder offers full refund plus 9% interest

Mumbai, 9th December 2016: Vineet Malik, a flat-buyer in Ekta Parksville aggrieved by the interminable delay in project completion and occupation certificate, received a pleasant surprise a couple of days ago. Ekta Parksville Homes Pvt Ltd sent him a letter that agreed to cancel the deal and refund the entire amount paid by him – Rs 25.24 lakhs – and additionally, interest of 9%. The total amount that Ekta World offered to pay is Rs 34.57 lakhs.
This letter was received in the wake of patient exchange of correspondence and meetings by Vineet Malik with CMD Ashok Mohanani, plus mainstream media and social media coverage (especially our blog) and also my and Sulaiman Bhimani's meeting and negotiation with the builder's men on Vineet Malik's behalf.
Ekta World's letter dated 3rd December 2016 proposed interest payment of Rs 9.32 lakhs to Vineet Malik.
At first, this seemed like an extremely generous offer, and any aggrieved buyer should be thrilled by this success! But let us examine the issue a bit more closely. After a delay of more than three years (and counting) in delivering the agreed flat in the Virar project, Ekta World is, "as a goodwill gesture" agreeing to pay back the paid amount plus 9% interest. This rate of interest is no more than what he would have had to pay for a project loan.
On the other hand, what is the penalty and interest that the buyer would have to pay Ekta World if he had slipped up in paying up his installments on time? Read this excerpt from the one-sided Registered Agreement.
The agreement states Ekta World can terminate the contract after giving the helpless buyer only seven days notice, if he slipped up in paying even one installment! Not only that, he would further forfeit 20% of the total consideration i.e. Rs 5.2 lakhs. Read this excerpt from the agreement.
Further, in case the builder chose not to terminate the contract unilaterally, the interest payable by the buyer for the delayed payment would be 24%. Read this excerpt.
So, 24% interest from buyer, 9% interest from builder. Does that sound fair? Vineet Malik doesn't think so.
Therefore, this feisty investor is turning down Ekta World's generous offer of interest of Rs 9.32 lakhs for five years. He will continue fighting for his just and equitable dues i.e. 24% interest on the refunded amount.
Issued in Public Interest by
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com
Posted By
Sulaiman Bhilani
9323642081

Mumbai, 30th August, 2016: To recover its Rs 100 crore project loan to RNA Exotica before it becomes a bad debt like BOI's loan and SBI's loan, Axis Bank is pressing the panic-button and threatening flat-buyers to immediately pre-pay large amounts (like Rs 25-50 lakh), forgetting about slab-completion schedules. Axis Bank has recently written strangely worded letters to RNA's Skyline Construction Co in respect of each and every flat (see specimen), saying that unless the entire remaining amount of the flat's consideration is remitted to its designated account, RNA Corp will not be allowed to sell the said flat to the name of the buyer. These letters, which are supposedly "No Objection Certificates" for the sale of flats to the purchasers, are being lovingly forwarded by RNA Corp to the individual flat-buyers with a tiny email (see example). Axis Bank's relayed letter is like holding a gun to the heads of helpless flat-buyers and saying: "Pay everything right now! Or else you will never get your flat!" And RNA Corp's forwarding email seems to suggest, "Yes, forget about installment payments based on slab-completion schedule. Just pay 100% right now".

In fact, Axis Bank's letter has come as a jolt to many buyers who were unaware that their flat was mortgaged by RNA to Axis Bank! Hundreds of RNA Exotica's buyers are suffering from sleepless nights, trying to figure out what course of action will be in their long-term interest. "Should we just pay the remaining amount to Axis Bank, so that it will release the lien over our flats? Or should we continue to pay in installments according to slab completion stages? Or should we go to Consumer Court? Or Civil Court? Or High Court? Or what?!!!" They are at a loss as to what to do next!

Axis Bank Threat

[NOTE: In our earlier article titled How RNA Corp taught ExoticArithmentic to Axis Bank, we revealed how Skyline Construction Co mortgaged unsold flats of RNA Exotica in 2011 and 2013 based on hugely inflated and completely unverifiable figures. Axis Bank gave the builder a Rs 75 cr line of credit in March 2011, and beefed it up to Rs 100 crore in March 2013, although the value of the collateral fell sharply.

Also, in RNA Exotica: Nine ways buyers got screwed, we analyzed the negative implications of the sale-purchase agreement.]

Now let us analyze the letter written by Axis Bank, supposedly addressed to Skyline Construction Co., but actually addressed to the flat-buyer directly. The subject line says, "No Objection for Release of Charge for Sale of Flat no. XXX in Building no. B Wing of RNA Exotica in favour of Mr YYY." The letter goes on to say:

  • RNA Exotica has been mortgaged exclusively to Axis Bank for a sanctioned line of credit of Rs 100 crores.
  • The said flat no. XXX is sold/proposed to be sold to Mr. YYY for a total consideration of Rs 1.8 crore (or some such amount), and that "We have been requested to issue our NO Objection for the said sale".
  • "We wish to inform you that we have No Objection for Release of Charge on the said premises to enable you to sell the said premises to said Mr YYY... subject to the specific condition that the total consideration mentioned above shall be deposited in designated account no ABCXYZ maintained with the Bank. Provided that if the Bank is not in receipt of the said sum of Rs 29.26 lakh in the designated amount as aforementioned, this NOC shall not have any effect and shall be deemed to be cancelled... and the charges over the said premises shall not stand released."

No, this is not really a "No Objection" letter; it is actually an Objection letter from Axis Bank to the flat-buyer with whom it really has no direct connection, and as such, it is illegal. As Axis Bank has given a project loan to the builder and not a home-loan to the buyer, it has no business communicating with the home-buyers.

IMPLICATIONS OF AXIS BANKS'S LETTER:

  1. REGISTERING OF SALE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS MAY BE HELD UP. Home-buyers who already have a registered sale-purchase agreement are slightly more safe. But, for those buyers who only have an Allotment Letter from the builder, this letter implies that they will not be allowed to register their agreement until they have paid 100% of the consideration amount and got an NOC from Axis Bank.
  2. CONFLICTS WITH HOME-LOAN LENDING BANKS. Home buyers who have taken a home-loan from another bank may be in a fix. Their bank will insist on releasing funds only according to slab-completion, and therefore, they will never get Axis Bank's NOC until the final payment is made... and so, they may have to wait till that stage for registering their agreement.
  3. HUGE PRESSURE ON SELF-FINANCED BUYERS. On the other hand, home-buyers who did not take a home-loan may feel under pressure to pay the entire remaining amount of Rs 25 to 50 lakhs, or even more, all at once. Do they have the capacity to pay such amounts immediately?
  4. PAYING 100% NOW MEANS BEING AT THE BUILDER'S MERCY. If home-buyers succumb to the temptation of making 100% payment at this stage, then what financial power do they retain in their hands? After paying 100%, they are totally at the builder's mercy. Currently, construction activity is going on at the 33rdfloor slab. Even if one assumes that the building is only 35 floors (and not 40 floors), a huge amount of construction work still remains, namely brick-work, plumbing and drainage, electricals, plastering, flooring, interiors, fixtures, lifts, stairs and common amenities such as clubhouse, etc. etc. At least two more years of work -- or about 50% of the work – is still remaining to be done before the flat-owners can get possession. What if Skyline Construction Co stops work and claims that it has run out of money? What if it demands more money – say another 20 lakh per flat – to complete the project? Going to court may not sound like such a good option then, and flat buyers will be left with no option except to pay whatever the builder asks.

What is the solution to all this? One possible solution could be that flat buyers should pay this amount to Axis Bank, but only after filing a civil case and after RNA Corp gives an undertaking to the court that they will complete the project within a deadline. Groups of flat-buyers are reportedly planning to take some such step, although these discussions are still at a preliminary stage.

Aagey dekhiye, iss dhaaravahik ki Ugly kadee!

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY

Krishnaraj Rao

9821588114

krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

WITH MAJOR INPUTS FROM

Sulaiman Bhimani

9323642081

sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com

3

Mumbai, 5th March, 2016: Last week, one of RNA builders' thousands of cheated flat-purchasers sent the builder a legal ultimatum, and started taking steps for going to court after discovering that their promised 17th floor flat in RNA Regal, a project in Kandivali West, is the proverbial pie-in-the-sky! In February 2011, Sandeep Kothari and Apeksha Khabiya, a non-resident couple based in Doha-Qatar, booked a spacious 17th floor flat in RNA Regal, based on the builder's promise that they would get possession within three years. The couple planned to return to India to live in this spacious 1365 sq. ft. dream house. After paying nearly Rs 30 lakhs up front as initial booking amount, the couple was kept in the dark by RNA Corp which fed them a steady diet of outright lies during the three-year waiting period. Every time the couple phoned RNA Corp, they were informed that the project was making satisfactory progress. In the end, the couple's rude awakening consisted of not one, but three shocking jolts!

Shock # 1: When the promised possession date arrived in March 2014, Sandeep and Apeksha were shocked to learn that no further progress had been made in three years, and that the project was practically at a standstill at “25% progress”, the same as the time when they had booked the flat in Feb 2011. Today, two years after making this shocking discovery, they are still no closer to getting their dream house.

Shock # 2: Almost five years after booking the flat and two yearsafter the promised possession date (March-April 2014), the couple was shocked to discover documents through Right To Information that showed that RNA Regal didn't even have BMC permission for going up to 17 floors and above!

Shock # 3: The couple recently sent their authorised representative to visit the site and make a first-hand observation about whether the construction work is in progress. They were traumatised to learn that no construction activities were going on, and the plot where RNA Regal was expected to come up, was partly blocked by slum dwellers. The authorized representative estimated that the encroachment by slumdwellers appeared to be two to four years old.

These are many causes for worry, not only for Mr and Mrs Kothari, but also for all the flat buyers in RNA Regal! RNA Corp's owners, namely the late Anil Aggarwal, as well as his sons Anubhav and Gokul Aggarwal, have evidently been keeping a large number of buyers in the dark.

Read the legal notice issued by GC Mehta and Associates on behalf of Mr and Mrs Sandeep Kothari: http://tinyurl.com/RNA-Regal-Kandivali

RNA Regal

How the NRI couple was cheated by RNA Corp:

  • The NRI couple booked a 1365 Sq. Ft. Flat on the 17th floor of RNA Regal, by paying Rs. 29.98 lakhs between February and June 2011 against the builder's demand for Rs. 29.28 lakhs, being 25% of the flat's total cost, along with expression of interest. Against this, the builder issued a letter of allotment.

  • The NRI couple made this booking based on the builder's representations that they would get possession of the flatwithin three years e. in the first quarter of 2014.
  • Afterwards, the NRI couple regularly followed up the progress of construction of RNA Regal and were assured by the builder's office that the project was satisfactory progressing.
  • When the date of possession arrived in March-April 2014, RNA Corp informed the NRI couple that still, only 25% of the construction was complete, and the project was stuck due to some “additional statutory requirements”.The couple was assured that efforts were being made and the necessary clearances would be obtained soon.
  • Upset at being kept in the dark until their promised possession date, the NRI couple now started enquiring about the project status by email on a regular basis.
  • In an email dated 4th April 2014, the builder assured that that construction work would resume by June 2014.
  • In an email dated 14th June 2014, the builder claimed that the approvals are expected within 10-15 days.
  • In an email dated 2ndJanuary 2015, the builder said that the necessary approvals would take another 2-3 months.
  • Later on, the NRI couple's emails dated 31/07/2015, 04/08/2015, 06/08/2015, 07/08/2015 20/08/2015 and 23/08/2015 and letters dated 08/12/2015 and 05/02/2016 were acknowledged by the builder's office only with great reluctance, but they all went unanswered.
  • Whenever the NRI couple or their authorized representatives visited India, they made it a point to visit the builder's office to inquire about the progress on this project and understand the earliest date of their getting possession, so that they could permanently return to India and live in this house. But during their every visit, the NRI couple were told about some or the other kind progress as well as difficulties that the RNA Corp had been facing. RNA Corp continually made promises, but there was no performance to back up these promises.
  • In spite of repeated requests, RNA Corp did not fulfill their obligation for executing a registered Agreement for Sale.
  • The NRI couple got a huge shock when they learned through RTI thatRNA Corp had not even obtained approval for constructing a building with 17 or more floors!
  • The Kotharis requested their authorised representative to visit the site and make first hand observation about the actual progress and whether the construction work is in progress. They were traumatised to learn thatno construction activities were going on and the plot where RNA Regal was projected to be constructed was partly blocked by slum dwellers. This encroachment appeared to be 2 to 4 years old!

Driven by all these unpleasant discoveries, Sandeep Kothari and his wife Apeksha have now reached the inescapable conclusion that RNA Corp has cheated them by retaining their money for more than five years, and has kept on making false statements as well as promises, which entitles them to invoke all legal remedies against the builders, especially under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

For more details on this case, contact Advocate GC Mehta (Mob 9820141178 Email advocategcm@gmail.com)

Postscript: Of late, RNA Corp has been in the news for failure to fulfill legal obligations to various stakeholders, including flat-buyers, project-affected-persons, lending banks, and multiple government agencies such as MCGM and MMRDA. After years or even decades of slippery behaviour by the late Anil Aggarwal and his sons Anubhav and Gokul, the patience of many stakeholders appears to have run out completely.

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY

Krishnaraj Rao

9821588114

krish.kkphoto@gmail.com