Hello all,

I am looking for a 3 BR flat in a project called Tulip Orange by Tulip Group, coming up in Sec 69 - 70 in Gurgaon.

I need some help from all of you regarding the history of Tulip Group, location and price of flats, their possession. Also shed some light on the pros and cons related to the group.

If any one has some bad or good experiences with Tulip Group, please share.

Thanks!
Read more
Reply
314 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • I am planning to shift to Tulip Orange. Being a newly developed society how is the security and maid availability in that area ?
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by changu
    I am planning to shift to Tulip Orange. Being a newly developed society how is the security and maid availability in that area ?


    Security is like a CGHS. Although I am not a resident, I did managed to go inside twice with my car without any interruption from security, However once I was asked to park car outside & make entry in the register.
    With cluster of Jhuggi's around, domestic help has never been an issue for this project.
    CommentQuote
  • Hi

    What is the status of Power Back up in Tulip Orange?
    Have they given 1 KVA power back up for house?
    Is there any process to request for more power back up?
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by prupro
    i agree guys...yesterday..i went to see Tulip projects......TULIP WHITE N ORANGE...Pathetic.....entrance thru some vollage...n done see main road coming up atleast in next 4 years.....which is Unitech responsibilty as they hold that land parcel....but i liked TULIP IVORY villas's cannot believe price tag...of 4 CR* also liked IVORY flats too but 1.5 Cr but with same village entrance big negative......and tulip violet gonna take more den 2 years to complete as working stopped in few towers.....reason no idea... :(

    den saw CHD.....almost ready...but looks like DDA society.....again approach from village no main road ready....atleast 4 years...same unitech story.....not happy with dat patch


    I also visited last weekend. By what standards did it look like a DDA society to you? Something I might have missed?
    CommentQuote
  • negative news from ec for some tulip projects

    Highly unpleasant and negative news for some Tulip Projects.Do not know which exact project is impacted.



    ----------------


    EC “Tulip Homes” Group Housing Project, at Sector-69-70, Gurgaon by M/S Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
    Project Proponent : Sh. Vikas Jain, Director
    Consultant : Voyant Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
    This project was received by the SEIAA on 27.08.2010. The papers submitted were examined and certain shortcomings were noticed and conveyed to the PP on 30.08.2010. The PP submitted reply to the shortcomings on 20.10.2010. Thereafter this case was taken up in the 48th meeting of the SEAC held on 24.11.2010 for presentation.
    During presentation it was noticed that the PP has submitted project for 39.06 acres of area whereas he has been issued license for an area of 25.44 acres. The PP submitted that for the balance area he has already applied for license to Director Town & Country Planning Department. After discussions the PP agreed to submit the project for the area for which license has been issued by Town & Country Planning Department.
    The shortcomings were conveyed to the PP on 02.12.2010. The PP submitted reply to the shortcomings on 16.12.2010. Thereafter this case was taken up in the 51st meeting of the SEAC held on 11.01.2011 for presentation. After detailed discussions, the following shortcomings were observed by the Committee:
    1. The PP should submit revised contour plan indicating the natural surface level.
    2. The PP should submit revised car parking plan for surface and basement with calculations.
    3. The PP should submit ambient Air monitoring data for one week on 24 hours basis
    4. The PP should submit revised water requirement and revised water balance diagram.
    5. The PP should submit an affidavit that during construction phase the water will be supplied through tankers from safe zone (Name of the safe zone is to be indicated).
    6. The PP should submit permission of the competent authority that their project does not fall under the Jurisdiction of Aravalli Notification dated 07.05.92.
    7. The PP should submit revised electrical safety plan design of lightning arrestors and earth pits.
    8. The PP should submit fire rescue plan.
    9. The PP should submit revised fire fighting plan.
    10. The PP should submit health and safety plan for the workers as per Haryana constructions workers rules 2005.
    11. The PP should submit revised monitoring plan indicating ambient air monitoring quarterly.
    The shortcomings observed in the 51st meeting were conveyed to the PP on 17.01.11. The PP submitted reply to the shortcomings on 14.02.11. Thereafter this case was taken up in the 55th meeting of the SEAC. In the meeting point-wise shortcomings were discussed.
    The case was recommended to the SEIAA for grant of Environmental Clearance by the SEAC on 14.03.2011. The case could not be taken up by the SEIAA due to the lapse of their tenure and therefore, the case was transferred to the MoEF for deciding the same.
    The case was taken up in the 105 meeting of EAC, Government of India held on 21st – 23rd September, 2011 and following observations were conveyed by them to the project proponent:

      The information with respect to Ground water depth, various rules/ regulations applicable to the project has not been provided in the application Form. Revised From addressing the above including their compliance shall be submitted.
      Examine and submit the details of the impact on traffic due to the project during construction and operation phases.
      Examine and submit the details of water bodies including the seasonal ones-ponds, lakes, low lying areas within the corridor of impacts along with their status, volumetric capacity, and quality likely impacts on them due t0 the project.
      NOC/Clearance from fire department shall be obtained prior to start of work.
      Operation and Maintenance of the STP, Solid Waste Management of apartments shall be ensured even after sale.
      Proposal indicates 490 KLD of fresh water, without assured source of water supply. Overexploited groundwater and impending severe shortage of water supply in the region requires the developer to redraw the water and energy conservation plan. Developer shall submit details of good practices that have been included in the project to reduce the overall footprint of the proposed development including a detailed water balance along with source and quantities of potable and non-potable water requirement (including water requirement during construction phase) incorporating water efficient/savings measures as well as water reuse/recycling within 3 months to the Ministry/ Regional office at Chandigarh before the start of construction.
      In view of water resources sustainability and severe constraints of water supply augmentation in the region the developer will submit NOC from CGWA specifying water abstraction quantities and NOC from HUDA/ utility provider indicating source of water supply and quantity of water with details of intended use of water - potable and non-potable and shall be submitted within 3 months to the Ministry/Regional office at Chandigarh before the start of construction.
      Submit the details of the Solid Waste Management including the consent of the HUDA for taking the wastes.
      The sources of water need to be include quantity, source surface/ground)? In case of an agency or supplier also. The agency, supplier and permission from CGWA if required has to specify quantity of water supplied. Extraction permitted, quality of water with particular use specified and time period commitment to supply or for making water available to developer.
      In view of the water/energy scarcity the developer need to submit details of design and planning of project with energy and resource efficiency (including water efficiency) to reduce footprint of the project. Details on building material used from embodied energy point of view need to be provided.
      Suitable meters shall be provided to measure the quantity of treated effluent used for recycle for different purposes i.e. flushing purpose, green belt and AC cooling purpose.
      Later on, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority was constituted by the MoEF on 23rd March, 2012. Therefore, the MoEF transferred the case to the SEIAA, Haryana on 05.06.2012.
      Thereafter, notice was issued to the PP vide letter No. 805 dated 27.11.2012 for the submission of compliance to the observations raised by the MoEF. The project proponent submitted the reply to the observations raised earlier on 08.12.2012.
      Thereafter as per revised guidelines issued by MoEF, this case was taken up for approval of Terms of Reference in 72nd meeting of the SEAC held on 27.12.2012. The Project Proponent requested in writing for postponement and the same was discussed in the meeting. The Committee agreed to the request of the Project Proponent and also decided to issue 30 day notice.
      The observations of the 72nd meeting of the SEAC were conveyed to the PP vide letter No. 944 dated 08.01.2013. The PP submitted the reply to the shortcomings on 20.02.2013.
      Thereafter this case was taken up for approval of Terms of Reference (ToR) in the 80th meeting of the SEAC held on 30.04.2013. The ToR were approved and conveyed to the project proponent vide letter No. 150 dated 08.05.2013. The project proponent submitted the EIA report on 17.07.2013 on the basis of Terms of Reference approved by the Committee.
      Thereafter, the case was taken up for appraisal in the 90th meeting of the SEAC held on 04.09.2013.
      After detailed discussions, the following shortcomings were concluded:

        The Green Area Development in the project report is not correct, out of 32.04% of the total plot area, 22.04% of the total plot area should be for tree plantation in the form of shelter belt around the periphery of the project area and in the form of avenue line on either side of the roads and around the water body. 5% of the total plot area under herbs/shrubs/climbers/lawns and parks. 5% of the total plot area for water body in saucer shape. All these should be shown on map.
        The PP should submit the Conceptual Plan as per the requirement of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006.
        The PP will submit an affidavit from the Director of the Company regarding latest status of project alongwith photographs.
        The PP should submit the copy of NOC under Aravali Notification, 1992 from Tehsildar through the District Collector.
        The PP should submit NOC from the Forest Department indicating that the area under consideration does not fall under the Forests Acts and Section 4 & 5 of PLPA.
        The PP should submit the revised contour map.
        The PP should submit the mitigating measures for maintaining the Air Quality as the PM-10 in the area is quite high.
        The PP should submit the water supply assurance during Construction phase and Operation phase from the Competent Authority.


        The observations of the 90th meeting of the SEAC were conveyed to the project proponent vide letter No. 692 dated 16.09.2013. The project proponent submitted the reply to the shortcomings vide letter dated 27.09.2013.
        Thereafter this case was taken up for appraisal in the 95th meeting of the SEAC held on of 27.11.2013.
        During discussions, it was revealed that project proponent had already started construction work which amounts to violation of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 in compliance of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006.
        It was observed by the Committee that the project proponent had not given the exact status of the construction carried out till them at the site. Therefore, PP was directed to submit the same in the form of an affidavit along with the Resolution of Board of Directors as per the Office Memorandum No. J-11013/41/2006.IA.II(I) dated 16th November, 2010 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.
        Further the Project Proponent was directed to stop the construction at site immediately in compliance of the Office Memorandum No. J-11013/41/2006.IA.II(I) dated 27.06.2013 issued by MoEF, Government of India.
        The observations of 95th meeting of the SEAC were conveyed to the project proponent vide letter No. 919 dated 23.12.2013. The project proponent submitted the reply of the shortcomings vide letter dated 10.01.2014.
        Thereafter this case was taken up for appraisal in the 100th meeting of the SEAC held on of 20.02.2014.
        The Project Proponent requested for adjournment and the same was discussed in the meeting. The Committee agreed to consider the request of the Project Proponent by issuing notice of 30 days by the Secretary SEAC.
        The observations of 100th meeting of the SEAC were conveyed to the project proponent vide letter No. 1084 dated 10.03.2014. The project proponent submitted the reply of the shortcomings vide letter dated 09.04.2014.
        Thereafter this case was taken up in the 105th meeting of the SEAC held on of 27.05.2014.
        The matter came up for discussion in respect to letter No. 919 dated 23.12.2013 issued by the Secretary, SEAC. The reply submitted by the Project Proponent was discussed in the SEAC meeting held on 27.04.2014. The project proponent was again requested to put up response to the office letter No. 919 dated 23.12.2013 which was submitted by the PP during the presentation.
        After going through the same the Committee is of the view that appropriate background of the case in chronological order as per record available be prepared by the Secretary, SEAC for consideration of the Committee and taking final view in the 106th meeting of the SEAC.
        This case was discussed in the 106th SEAC meeting held on 17.06.2014. After listing to the opinion of all the members and taking into all the previous decisions taken by the SEAC, the Committee is of the view that the case is not fit for being claimed for deemed clearance because the PP did not respond the queries raised by the EAC in its 105th meeting. Subsequently the process was further taken up by the SEAC Haryana and it has been concluded that PP has constructed the project at site without obtaining EC which amounts to violation.
        The Committee decided to appoint a sub-committee to visit the site and report regarding all environmental aspects.
        The Sub-committee consisting of the following which will inspect the site to verify the status of construction of the project:

          Sh. I.J. Juneja, Chairman
          Sh. Sultan Singh, Member
          Sh. Jamit Singh, Member
          Sh. Jamit Singh, Member shall coordinate with the project proponent and the consultant. On behalf of project proponent, Sh. Vikas Jain, Director, shall coordinate with Sh. Jamit Singh, Member for deciding the date of the visit and other details.
          The sub-committee shall submit its report within 15 days from the issue of the letter by the Secretary SEAC.
    CommentQuote
  • Any update on this???
    CommentQuote
  • Please forgive me for being harsh but this Tulip"s township is one of the worse in neighborhood. Construction quality/deliverable is below average. Worst is the security. Company advertises of 3 tier securitu but in reality there are only a couple of guards at entrance with no guards at tower level or any CCTVs so how is it 3 tier security. There is village behind tulip white and absence of guards at tower levels make white and orange prone to burglaries.

    I talked to security officer about 3 tier security. He first asked me if I had a flat there
    I said no but wanted to buy one. He asked me to talk to marketing guys in this regard. This clearly shows that there will be no 3 tier security in near future.
    CommentQuote
  • what is the price tag of apartments ? i was considering purchasing one 3 bhk...can someone guide
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by mkhemka
    what is the price tag of apartments ? I was considering purchasing one 3 bhk...can someone guide

    6600-6900
    CommentQuote
  • shree vardhman victoria is available around 6500 under construction at same location. better option imo.
    CommentQuote
  • Orange is ready to move in
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by vik thakur
    6600-6900

    BSP or all inclusive?
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by vik thakur
    6600-6900



    Actual deals are at lower price than this... This is buyers market and its very difficult to find a buyer.....
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by mitraa
    Actual deals are at lower price than this... This is buyers market and its very difficult to find a buyer.....

    I am not saying deals are not available lower then this price but generally people are demanding this price.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by Venkytalks
    BSP or all inclusive?

    Sir BSP price
    CommentQuote