135,475+ Members
   Get Started   Today's Posts Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
IREF® Real Estate in India - Property Discussion
IREF® - Indian Real Estate Forum > Real Estate in India > Real Estate Faridabad > News On Triveni Infrastructure & TFAA Court Case Status
Like Tree18Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 21 2013, 04:17 PM   #31
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,267
Likes Received: 106
Likes Given: 81
My Mood: Asleep
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RE2050 View Post
Dear All

I have also heard that in delhi very soon DDA will going to pass delhi mater plan 2021 which will release huge land bank for hosing to develop by builders or land pooloing by extisting farmers in area like najafgarg which is in vicinity of GGN-dwarka Ex way.The present land rate there is 2-3 crores per acres,which means 200-300 per sq ft cost of land and cost of construction is 1500 per sq feet.

if we add 1000 per sq feet profit into it, the price will be 2800 per sf feet,

then why to buy in far flung area when we will get flats in proper delhi

experts/vetrens put some light here

Also read hindustan time delhi 18 april , second last page huge Advertisement by DDA in this reagrds i mean land pooling policy.
Well its a hoax common these days, let me explain you in reality, if it happens

1. Far off areas like nazafgarh, mukundpur, post dwaraka, karnal bypass are extremely far off from main Delhi or Delhi areas commnly known for decent working space......hence it will make much difference really cant comment!

2. all the sub cities planned couple of decades before something actuallycome up to the standered of say decent living, however NCR areas are as of now RTM with facilities and nearness to Delhi!

3. Dwaraka itself and Narela are part of Delhi, Dwarka is semi ghost town whereas narela is almost empty, so question arises about the occupant of upcoming areas.

4. Upcoming areas if come planned its fine, but to reach there by raod is still a concern e.g Karnal bypass road , is full with unauthozed, slums villages, one has to pass through all tht shit to reach to his house as per 2021 master plan.

5. South delhi nearbye areas (or areas near Noida Gurgaon) are anyways earmarked for posh Farm Houses (1cares minimum) hence dont see much impact on prices of NCR areas

6. Connectivity issues, Narela , Nazafgarh etc have connectivity issues to some extent Dwarka has the same issues however NCR areas are well connected as of now, so this is another point will hold back people.

7. Dont know how valid is it, but Litigations are the flavour of the season....so might not be surprised to see some in new areas holding back development

  Reply With Quote
Old May 1 2013, 08:29 PM   #32
 
 
BlessU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,674
Likes Received: 3534
Likes Given: 3129
My Mood: Amused
Default

Protest by TFAA
Attached Images
 
  Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 02:52 PM   #33
 
 
BlessU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,674
Likes Received: 3534
Likes Given: 3129
My Mood: Amused
Default Triveni Buyers Approach Authorities

941843 565352050163105 1591288425 n

941547 565513866813590 554896168 n

https://www.face book.com/pages/Triveni-Faridabad-Allottees-Association/348791638485815
  Reply With Quote
Old May 14 2013, 06:01 PM   #34
 
 
BlessU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,674
Likes Received: 3534
Likes Given: 3129
My Mood: Amused
Default

........ more coverage
Attached Images
  
  Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 02:38 PM   #35
 
 
BlessU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,674
Likes Received: 3534
Likes Given: 3129
My Mood: Amused
Default Complaints Made to DTCP for taking over of Triveni Project

Hi
Greetings

Please find todays news on Triveni issue.

Cheers
Attached Images
  
  Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2013, 02:50 AM   #36
 
 
BlessU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,674
Likes Received: 3534
Likes Given: 3129
My Mood: Amused
Default

Hi
Greetings

Please find text of order by the Honble High court of Delhi
Quote:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CO. APP. 94/2012

MADHUR MITTAL AND ANR. ..... Appellant

Through Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay S. Chhabra,
Advocate.

versus

DINESH MITTAL AND ORS. ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Advocate for MSP Steel and Power.

Mr. Sarat Chandra and Mr. Sachin Chandra, Advocates for petitioning
creditors in C.P. No.333/2010.
Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Rajat
Brar, Advocates for Investors.
Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for Bati Devi.
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for Income Tax Department.
Mr. Jay Savla, Advocate for SICOM.
Ms. Gunjan Kumar, Advocate for OBC.
Mr. P. Nagesh and Mr. Rajat Aror, Advocates for applicant Sanchar
Nest Sahkari.
Mr. Bob Madan and Mr. Rahul Juneja, Advocate for OM Telecom.
Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Advocate.
Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Mr. Ashish Makhija and Ms. Ankita, Advocates for
OL.
Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Poonam Singh and Mr. Yadunath
Singh, Advocates for BSF Family Welfare Society.
Mr. Raman Kapoor, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate for TFA Association.
Mr. Amit Gaurav, Advocate for respondent No. 5.


CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUAL

O R D E 11.07.2013

CM No. 7975/2013

This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator seeking clarification of the orders dated 11th February, 2013 and 20th November, 2012.

It is stated in the application that during the course of implementation of the order dated 11th February, 2013 certain anomalies and difficulties in compliance have been noticed. Our attention has been drawn to order dated 11th February, 2013 and the role and obligation of the official liquidator, wherein after referring to the land of the company at Daruhera, Rewari and Ghaziabad, we have recorded with reference to plotted land at Faridabad that the Official Liquidator will keep the factum i.e. land has been acquired and compensation has to be paid or received and would proceed accordingly.

Secondly, our attention is drawn where with regard to the claim of Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited, it is mentioned that this aspect could be examined by the Company Judge.

Our attention is also drawn to the paragraph wherein we have said that we had not quantified the amount due and payable to the secured and unsecured creditors, including the flat buyers and nor had we determined which other properties were owned by Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Limited.

It is brought to our notice that we have stated that identification of unsecured creditors is required and the said exercise should be undertaken by the Company Court expeditiously for determining the exact claim of all unsecured creditors to ensure paymentto them.

We have also recorded that the decision on any of these aspects should not however become an impediment in the sale of the projects.

2. Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that if the aforesaid exercise is to be done, then the restrictions or the restraints put on the official liquidator, will lead to ambiguity and in fact result in contradiction. Official liquidator as a provisional liquidator cannot perform the said tasks and the directions given in the order dated 14th February, 2013 will remain a non starter. The restriction or restrain is recorded in the following paragraph of the order dated 14th February, 2013;-

?The interim order and directions issued in the order dated 20.11.2012 shall continue, except to the extent it has been directed that the two projects, namely, ?Triveni Galaxy? situated at Sector-78 and ?Triveni Signature? situated at Sector-89, Faridabad should be sold in a public auction by the Company Court.?

By order dated 20th November, 2012, a division bench while issuing notice had directed that the appellants as well as the official liquidator who had taken the charge shall maintain status quo.

3. Our attention is also drawn to the order dated 14th February, 2013 passed by the single Judge wherein, he noticed the observations made by us in the order dated 11th February, 2013 and had observed:-

?4. To the extent that the DB has directed the continuation of the interim order dated 20th November, 2012 requiring the Official Liquidator (?OL?) to maintain status quo, it appears that the OL cannot take further steps in his capacity as provisional liquidator (?PL?) as of now. Mr. Rajiv Bahl, learned counsel states that the OL would like to seek further clarification from the DB in that regard.?

4. It has been pointed out to us that two private parties, namely, Zyon Infrastructure Private Limited and Pal Infrastructure and Development Private Limited have filed applications before the Company Judge, pursuant to liberty granted by us subsequent to order dated 11th February, 2013, claiming that they have interest in land at Sector 78, and have partly constructed flats and have entered into agreements with various third parties/flat buyers. Our attention is drawn to the order dated 11th February, 2013 wherein we have recorded the statement of Mr. Malhotra that the total acreage of the project Triveni Galaxy is 37 acres and total acreage of the project Triveni Signature is 14 acres. He has submitted that in the garb of ?status quo? order, Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal and Mr. B.N. Gupta are not furnishing following details:
(i) Original/eligible copies of the title deeds.
(ii) Balance sheets for last five years from 2008-09 onwards.
(iii) Annual return for last five years.
(iv) Books of accounts for last five years and statutory records.
(v) Details of flat buyers/investors/other buyers with relevant details.
(vi) Details of secured and other unsecured creditors with copy of charge
certificate.
(vii) Details of loans, advances and investments.

5. He seeks permission to break open the lock(s) of the registered office of which possession was taken over by the Official Liquidator, to prepare inventory in the presence of Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal or Mr. B.N. Gupta. He further submits that the order of status quo is being interpreted as a restrain order which bars and prohibits the Company Judge and the official liquidator from proceeding as per law. The paragraph which refers to the status quo order in the order dated 11th February, 2013 is in conflict with other observations made in the same order about steps which have to be taken.

6. Mr. Harish Malhotra, who appears for Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal and Mr. B.N. Gupta states and submits that copies of the title deeds of the property have already been submitted but as required they shall furnish certified copies of the title deeds after obtaining the same from the Sub-Registrar?s Office within 12 weeks. He submits that title deeds are in fact with various bankers, details of which will be given. As far as the balance sheets and annual returns are concerned, he states that the same are ready till the year ending 31st March, 2010.

Thereafter, the balance sheets have not been prepared as the records are lying seized. Balance sheets and annual returns till the year ending 31st March, 2010 will be furnished again to the Official Liquidator. He states that they have no objection and Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal or Mr. B.N. Gupta will be present at the time of breaking open of the lock at the registered office and thereafter their duly certified authorised representative will be present and will also sign the inventory list. Statutory records and the annual books of accounts are available in the registered office. Details are available in the said records. Photocopy of the required records can be made and one copy can be given to the authorised representative and the other can be retained by the Official Liquidator.

Thereafter, the registered office can be re- sealed and in case the registered office is required to be re-opened for any purpose, direction can be taken from the Company Judge.

7. As far as identification, demarcation and/or fencing of the properties at Rewari, Daruhera and Ghaziabad is concerned, Mr. Harish Malhotra states that his clients want to and will fully cooperate with the Official Liquidator as it is in their interest. The said exercise will be undertaken by the Official Liquidator with the help and assistance of Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal or Mr. B.N. Gupta or their certified authorised representative.

8. Statements made on behalf of Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal and Mr. B.N. Gupta are taken on record. They will be bound by the same.

9. As far as possession of the lands and properties of the company is concerned, the same will remain with the Official Liquidator but Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal and Mr. B.N. Gupta or their certified authorised representative can visit the lands to ensure that there is no encroachment or third party rights or objection etc. are dealt with. They will be permitted to visit any land after informing the Official Liquidator. As far as responsibility for security, protection and funds etc. for protecting the land is concerned, Company Judge will decide the said aspect after hearing all sides. Company Judge will be at liberty to modify and amend the directions given above with regard to the possession. If required and necessary, police assistance can be taken.

10. It is pointed out Income-tax appeal has been preferred against the assessment order making substantial addition by Mr. Madhur Mittal and Mr. Sumit Mittal. Official Liquidator has also filed an appeal. Thus, it appears that Mr. Madhur Mittal and Mr. Sumit Mittal and the Official Liquidator both have filed appeals against the said order.

This aspect will be examined by the Company Judge and appropriate steps and directions will be given to ensure that the appellate proceedings are properly attended and prosecuted. Interest of the company and creditors should be protected.

11. We clarify that we have not deliberately commented or referred to SFIO reports and the defence or the comments of Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal and Mr. B.N. Gupta and these are not subject matter of the order dated 11th February, 2013. This is an aspect which is pending before the Company Judge.

12. In the order dated 11th February, 2013, we have recorded the consent of Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal and Mr. B.N. Gupta that land at Faridabad should be sold. It appears that the said process has started but applications filed by Zyon Infrastructure Private Ltd. and Pal Infrastructure and Development Private Limited are pending.

At the first instance, every attempt will be made to proceed with the sale but in case there is impediment and difficulty in sale of the said land, it will be open to the Company Judge to proceed further in respect of other lands in accordance with law. Whether or not process for sale of other lands should be initiated, will be decided by the Company Judge after hearing all parties concerned.

13. The flat buyers who are unsecured creditors are facing considerable hardship and suffering because their money is stuck, the project has stopped midway and they may have also taken interest bearing loans. Our primary interest and concern is to protect, help and secure them. We clarify the status quo order should not mean that the Company Judge cannot and should not proceed in accordance with law. It is only means and states that at the first instance attempt should be made to sell the two property at Faridabad and only in case of any impediment or difficulty or in case payments cannot be made or are delayed, further steps could be taken. Proceedings have not been stayed and the Company Judge is entitled to and can pass appropriate and required orders.

It is submitted that publication and filing of statement of affairs at this stage may create problems and will not serve any purpose. We have recorded statement on behalf of Mr. Madhur Mittal, Mr. Sumit Mittal and Mr. B.N. Gupta with regard to details, books of accounts, etc. The said details/papers must be furnished. In view of the said position, at this stage, publication of the advertisement admitting the winding up petition and statement of affairs need not be filed. However, if at any stage, the Company Judge feels that publication and statement of affairs is required to be filed, it will be open for him to direct so, in accordance with law.

The application is disposed of.

REVIEW PETITION NOS. 240/2013 and 251/2013

In view of the order passed above, many apprehensions/aspects have been answered and dealt with. We note that flat buyers are unsecured creditors and many of them may have different view points; some of them may want possession of their unconstructed flat, someone may want unconstructed flat to be sold, some others may want that their liabilities should be paid by a purchaser or a third party should be directed to complete the construction. It will be difficult to reconcile everyone?s interest which may be conflicting. It was in these circumstances, at the first stage it was suggested that let the properties at Faridabad i.e. the under construction flats should be sold so that the money is paid to the flat buyers expeditiously and at the earliest point in time. This may not satisfy everyone or all the unsecured creditors.

Given the situation, this was the best possible solution available at that time and even today. As noted in the order dated 11th February, 2013, it has been stated that part payments have been made for land at Daruhera, Rewari and Ghaziabad. We also note that winding up petition has been only admitted and final winding up order has not been passed.

Sale of properties under law requires consent of the directors etc. We do not think it will be proper or to completely withdraw and unwrite the order dated 11th February, 2013 and record that the properties at Faridabad should not be sold. Steps for valuation etc. have been taken by the Company Judge. With the consent of the parties, it was directed that the properties at Faridabad should be sold.

Consent given was informed consent. With the aforesaid observations, we dismiss the review applications.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.





SIDDHARTH MRIDUAL, J.

JULY 11, 2013

VKR/NA



$ Part IIB (R-11)
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqryd...126819&yr=2013

Cheers
yogesh98712 likes this.
  Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2013, 02:58 AM   #37
 
 
BlessU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,674
Likes Received: 3534
Likes Given: 3129
My Mood: Amused
Default

Hi
Greetings

It appears that real culprits are the homebuyers, while all discretion is still with the directors of the ill-fated company under liquidation.

The decision is an order and no body can challenge the honourable court. At least this is what I explained a friend. His query was,

"how is liquidation without any formula or ascertainment of the true liabilities of the company,, the Best situation THEN AND NOW??."

Surely therefore let justice

Cheers
sayan likes this.
  Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2013, 09:16 AM   #38
 
 
sayan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 1inch below Heaven
Posts: 1,974
Likes Received: 1927
Likes Given: 1573
My Mood: Fine
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlessU View Post
Hi
Greetings

It appears that real culprits are the homebuyers, while all discretion is still with the directors of the ill-fated company under liquidation.

The decision is an order and no body can challenge the honourable court. At least this is what I explained a friend. His query was,

"how is liquidation without any formula or ascertainment of the true liabilities of the company,, the Best situation THEN AND NOW??."

therefore let justice

Cheers
Sir,
How you foresee the "Liquidation" process???? What will be the Modus Operandi???
Do you think any builder will buy the troublesome Triveni plot with old structures & pay some discounted price & The money collected will be the instrument to bailout Triveni buyers/ suppliers & subcontractor's.
Will it be so easy?????
BlessU and yogesh98712 like this.
__________________
Donate Blood - Five minutes of your time + 350 ml. of your blood = One life saved.
  Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2013, 09:26 AM   #39
Veteran Member
 
miketest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Faridabad
Posts: 4,665
Likes Received: 1708
Likes Given: 2030
My Mood: Bored
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlessU View Post
Hi
Greetings

It appears that real culprits are the homebuyers, while all discretion is still with the directors of the ill-fated company under liquidation.

The decision is an order and no body can challenge the honourable court. At least this is what I explained a friend. His query was,

"how is liquidation without any formula or ascertainment of the true liabilities of the company,, the Best situation THEN AND NOW??."

therefore let justice

Cheers
Hi BlessU,

How does this order effect Zion and other projects being built on Triveni's land?
BlessU likes this.
  Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2013, 09:57 AM   #40
Veteran Member
 
yogesh98712's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: catch me if u can
Posts: 1,687
Likes Received: 1019
Likes Given: 737
My Mood: Cheerful
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sayan View Post
Sir,
How you foresee the "Liquidation" process???? What will be the Modus Operandi???
Do you think any builder will buy the troublesome Triveni plot with old structures & pay some discounted price & The money collected will be the instrument to bailout Triveni buyers/ suppliers & subcontractor's.
Will it be so easy?????
very good question sayan bhai
ye mamalaa aur ulazz gayaa hai in my views court ko sabsee phelee un investor ko bahar nikalna chahiyee jinhonee mazak mee iss project mee investment karr diya means 50000 se 150000 rs jamaa karwayee aur bhull gayee unhe ya to unka paisa wapas kar diya jana chahiye ya kuch amout kat kar wapass karr dee . so the numbers of alloties in trevini will come down and then any builder can construct the building and take its share in flats .
sayan and miketest like this.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Join IREF Now!    
Related Threads
‘Housing sector should be granted infrastructure status'
Dwarka eway infrastructure status
Triveni infrastructure victim welfare association
Won court case, now how to collect


Tags
bad, investors, news, triveni
     

Real Estate in India | Delhi - NCR | Gurgaon | Noida | Greater Noida | Mumbai | Pune | Bangalore | Chennai | Kolkata | Hyderabad | Ahmedabad | Goa
Ghaziabad | Faridabad | Chandigarh | Jaipur | Lucknow | Nagpur | Bhubaneswar | Coimbatore | Indore | Kerala | Surat | Vadodara

Home | About IREF® | Forum Rules | Real Estate Glossary | Terms and Conditions | Copyright Infringement Policy
Copyright © 2006-2014 www.indianrealestateforum.com All Rights Reserved.


".Faridabad.", ".Haryana."India