Firm told to hand over flat sold 14 years ago, pay 13L to buyer
Mumbai: A consumer forum has directed a construction firm to pay Rs 12.75 lakh compensation to a flat buyer for delay in handing over a 790-sqft flat booked in a Mulund building in 1999. The forum also directed Annapi Construction Company to hand over the flat to the complainant, Rashmi Patil, within one month.
“It is declared that the opposite party has indulged in deficiency of service by not handing over the vacant possession of the flat in spite of executing agreement of sale and accepting Rs 13.38 lakh from the complainant,” the forum said.
On December 6, 1999, Patil executed a registered sale agreement and paid the requisite stamp fee of Rs 77,250 towards registration charges. Over time, she paid the flat amount and the firm said the flat would be handed over to her on December 31, 2000. However, the firm created a third-party interest and gave the flat to another buyer. Aggrieved, Patil filed a complaint in the Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum on December 5, 2005.
When the firm did not file its reply, on March 16, 2011, the forum decided to continue with the matter ex parte.
The forum took into consideration the sale agreement executed by the builder in favour of Patil and the fact that she had paid the entire price of the flat along with the registration charges. The forum said that these are more than sufficient to conclude that the firm had inducted others illegally and thereby, indulged in deficiency of service to the complainant.
“The entire evidence of the complainant is on an affidavit and supported by documents filed on record. Also, the agreement of sale executed by the firm in favor of the complainant is a registered document,” the forum said. It also pointed out that the agreement with the current flat residents was registered only in May 2000.
With respect to the current residents, the forum said that it could not pass any order against them. “We are of the view that the complainant will have to rush to the civil court for getting relief against them. However, this forum cannot… pass an order of eviction against them.”
Investment Co Asks Where Money Went, Threatens To Notify Law Enforcement Authorities
Mumbai: Investment company Hirco Plc on Monday fired a fresh salvo against developer Niranjan Hiranandani and his family, threatening to notify law enforcement authorities over two township projects in Panvel and Chennai.
The company had raised Rs 3,000 crore from global investors in 2006 for the two projects controlled by the Hiranandanis but is yet to receive any returns on its investments.
Hirco said it found that cash collections for Panvel and Chennai totalled about 192 million pounds (under Rs 2,000 crore) till November. The Chennai and Panvel assets had a value of 556 million pounds (around Rs 5,500 crore). The secured assets debts of some or all of these assets come to 101 million pounds (Rs 1,000 crore).
“Hirco Plc has, therefore, written to the directors of the Indian project companies, demanding an explanation as to how and to whom the cash collections were disbursed and why the companies were unable to repay the debts,” Hirco said in a statement on Monday.
Hirco also asked for a forensic accounting examination of the books and records of the Indian project companies.
“Hirco Plc will also continue to pursue redress against Niranjan Hiranandani and Priya Hiranandani for fraud and other wrongdoing through the ongoing litigation and arbitration proceedings,’’ it said. A spokesperson of Hiranandani Palace Gardens Chennai said: “The present references from Hirco Plc appear to be a ploy in its inability to infuse fresh capital in project companies for the development and future plans of action which is sought by the project companies… As far as the utilisation of funds is concerned, whether received from equity infusion, loans from Indian banks/funding agencies or customer contribution, the proper utilisation by the project companies is already reflected in the audited accounts of the companies ...”
Last month, the Bombay HC appointed a court receiver to manage the property of Hiranandani Palace Gardens, owner of the Chennai residential assets. The court did so on the application of Tata Capital Financial Services after Hiranandani Palace Gardens defaulted on a Rs 76 crore loan. The court directed Hiranandani Palace Gardens to file an affidavit of disclosure detailing all of that company’s unencumbered assets. Tata Capital alleged in support of its windingup petition that Hiranandani Palace Gardens had misrepresented facts to obtain the loan.
A Hiranandani Palace Gardens spokesperson said: “The specific reference is not for the whole project but for the part of the development of Palace Gardens Chennai which is linked to the loan from Tata Capital. No residential or commercial units which are under construction, are part of this land. As far as the loan repayment with Tata is concerned, efforts are underway to resolve it amicably.”
Mumbai: The HC on Monday dismissed a plea seeking a CBI probe into the cluster development project at Bhendi Bazaar.A division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Achilya heard social worker, Priya Rathod’s plea alleging that tenants were being evicted using underworld threats. Her advocate, K T Thomas, argued residents were afraid.
Advocate Satish Maneshinde appearing for the Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust undertaking the project said the plan covers 16.5 acres and 260 buildings, adding that 1,500 transit tenements had been built. He said no tenant in the 30 buildings demolished so far had lodged a complaint.
Additional solicitor general Kevic Setalvad said there was no case made out for a CBI probe. Thomas said there was social media “outpouring” and only Rathod had filed a police complaint. The judges said in the absence of more concrete material, an inquiry could stall the scheme. Declining to intervene, the judges said Rathod could approach the Mumbai Repair and Reconstruction Board with hser grievances.
CONSUMER FORUM -Cheating on area to cost builder 92K
Thane: A builder in Ulhasnagar who fleeced buyers with incorrect building plans and cheated on the area of the sold flat was exposed by the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum last week.
Vijay Lalsingh Thakur, the owner of Thakur Constructions, was directed by the forum to pay over Rs 92,000 in compensation and legal expenses to Nikum Popat Kanhu for not providing the flat area promised at the time of accepting payment in 2005-2006.
The area of the flat in the multi-storey Sai Ashray building in Lal Chakki in Ulhasnagar was in variance with the plan shown to Kanhu in 2005.
“The builder promised 550 sq ft area and the money was paid at the rate of Rs 927 per sq ft then,” advocate Poonam Makhijani, who represented Kanhu in the forum, said. “When the construction was completed and the builder handed over possession, the area turned out to be 365 sq ft.”
When the buyer confronted Thakur with the fact and pointed out his falsehood, the builder argued that 550 sq ft was supposed to be the super-built-up area and not the carpet area.
Kanhu also pointed out inconsistencies, such a smaller door size, cracks on the walls and ceiling, and the use of stilt parking for a different purpose.
IN MUMBAI Regulations state parking space must be allotted according to the size of a flat
MUMBAI: The next time a builder tries to sell you parking space, this order might come in handy. In a landmark decision, the civic body has asked a Kandivli society to give parking space to a flat owner even though he had not purchased a slot from the builder.
The order is based on a little known regulation — section 36 of the Development Control regulations — which states that the builder has to mandatorily provide parking spaces depending on the size of the flats. For instance, in the island city, two parking slots have to be constructed for a flat which is more than 1,000 square feet in area.
Builders trying to sell outrageously priced parking spaces is commonplace in the city.
Experts say implementation of the order will ensure builders do not sell parking space illegally.
“This order will make citizens realise that the builder is responsible for providing the parking space if the flat is of a certain area. Hence, they need not buy the space,” said advocate and expert on housing societies Vinod Sampat.
The civic body’s December 30 order came after a four-year battle between Goregaon-resident Sunil Ahya and the civic body’s R-South ward office.
Ahya had refused to buy a parking slot while purchasing a two-bedroom flat in Kandivli’s Gokul Nagri society. As a result, the society refused to allot him parking space.
Ahya l ater realised that t he builder had submitted plans which showed he was given a parking slot , but made different allotments to the buyers.
MANDATORY - BMC order on Kandivli society highlights little-known rule that societies must reserve space for visitors
MUMBAI: The civic body’s recent order regarding a Kandivli society is a boon for residents for more than one reason: Not only does it highlight a little-known rule on the eligibility of flat-buyers for free parking spaces, it reiterates that all societies have to reserve parking space in their compound for visitors.
The Development Control Regulations (DCR), which the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ( BMC) quoted while passing the order, states that housing societies in the city have to reserve a specific portion of their total parking space for visitors.
For most of the island city, Juhu, and parts of Bandra, this figure is 25%, while for the rest of the city, it is 10%.
The R North ward office’s building and factory department, on December 30, ordered the Gokul Nagar society in Kandivli to disregard parking allotments made by the builder and observed that as per the DCR, the builder has to provide free parking spaces to residents whose flats are above a certain size (see box).
The landmark order came after Goregaon resident Sunil Ahya , who had bought a flat in the Kandivli society, complained to the BMC that the parking allotments were not according to the original plan. He also highlighted the absence of earmarked slots for visitors.
HT had, on July 30, 2010, reported Ahya’s complaint and the seldom-invoked rule on reserving parking for visitors.
Ahya said he came across the rule after a disagreement with his society about parking space for his car. “While the rules are very clear, most societies put up boards proclaiming that visitors are not allowed to park inside,” he said.
The ruling is a lesson to all flat buyers to check plans submitted by builders to the BMC. “It may be the case that your flat is not eligible for a parking space at all, according to the civic norms. To avoid fraud, the buyer must ask for the parking plan and statement approved by the BMC,” said Ahya.
The Gokul Nagari society confirmed it had received the BMC’s notice. “We have erased the existspace for three cars for two flats with carpet areas between 485 and 1,000 sq ft, and two spaces for each flat above 1,000 square feet ing allotments. These were made by the builder and we had little knowledge how they happened,” said secretary Ramesh Patil.
An official from the R North ward’s building and factory department confirmed that such a notice had been sent. MUMBAI: Suspended economics professor Neeraj Hatekar took a two-hour lecture at the gates of Mumbai University’s Kalina campus, after being approached by many students for ‘concept clearing and general understanding’ of the subject.
Around 40 students attended the session, which began at 3pm and continued till 5pm.
“All I want to do is teach and these students needed my help. We mainly discussed general concepts in subjects. I will continue teaching in any way I can,” Hatekar said.
Students were thrilled to see the professor take lectures outside the varsity gate and are encouraging more students to join in. “He is an excellent teacher and the university is taking it all away. It is a loss to students, the authorities need to understand that,” said one of the students.
Hatekar, who is widely known for his teaching of game theory and microeconomics, was suspended for allegedly maligning the university.
The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the state to clarify its stand of not allowing any constructions within 500 metres of prisons. The court asked whether it would be progressive or implemented with retrospective effect.
A division bench of Justice NH Patil and Justice VL Achiliya said, “Security of jails is the responsibility of state authority and it is not proper to put restrictions on private constructions in the vicinity.”
The state government had on December 4, 2013, issued a Government Resolution (GR) stating that no construction would be allowed up to 500 metres around any jail. The policy was issued with security of prison inmates in mind.
The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) informed the court that it had issued stop-work notices to 13 under-construction buildings around Taloja prison.
The bench was informed that the 13 buildings are beyond the earlier buffer zone of 182 metres from the jail but were within the new 500 metres zone.
The court then sought to know from the government if the GR would have a prospective effect or would also effect any ongoing construction. It said: “You (government) need to take some urgent steps and clarify this. Otherwise, private persons are at a loss. They will continue investing in properties and one day the construction will be bulldozed.”
The direction was given during the hearing of a petition filed by Ramesh Upadhyay, accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, raising concerns about security threats to inmates of Taloja jail due to the high-rises coming up around it.
The court also asked the government to consider the prison issue with as much priority as it gives to other public projects. The court has scheduled a further hearing on the petition on January 20.
Development Control Regulations (DCR) in Mumbai and Maharashtra
Development Control Regulations (DCR) in Mumbai and Maharashtra
The government of Maharashtra (GoM) has recently announced new versions of DCR for "regions" - areas for which the town planning department has prepared a "Regional Plan". The GoM has also announced a unified DCR for areas with A/B/C class Municipal Councils.
MUMBAI: All new development projects must factor in the impact of climate change and sea level rise, said environmentalists on Thursday.
The suggestions are likely to be incorporated by the municipal corporation in the revised Development Plan 2014-34. The BMC held a thematic workshop on environment for the DP revision process and it was attended by members of Conservation Action Trust (CAT), Vanashakti, Save Open Spaces, Citispace, Mumbai Environmental Social Network, Mumbai Waterfronts Centre, Observer Research Foundation and PK Das & Associates.
Debi Goenka, president, CAT, said that irrespective of what the BMC plans, there will be forces of nature that it will have no control over.
"Whatever activity or projects are planned in Mumbai have to factor in the issue of sea level rise," Goenka said. "Mumbai is surrounded by water on three sides and one of the predictable impacts of climate change is going to be sea level rise. There's no point in talking about higher floor space index since coastal areas are likely to be submerged or eroded."
On water supply, it was stressed that the city had to import water from places 130 km away and that there was little recycling happening.
"Mumbai's water supply depends on the southwest monsoon," Goenka said. "If we are talking about the survival of the city, we have to think about the time if monsoon is delayed. We don't even have a stand-by. We are importing water to Mumbai from 130 km away and using it for drinking, flushing and washing cars."
Mapping of all natural assets like rivers, creeks, pond, lakes, seafronts, beaches, wetlands, mangroves, hills and forests, besides nullahs, should be made mandatory in the revised Deveopment Plan, said architect P K Das.
Keep forests, maidans development-free: Green brigade
Debi Goenka, president, Conservation Action Trust said the revised Development Plan should preserve whatever remained of the Aarey Milk Colony, which had been heavily exploited commercially, and no development should be permitted there. The green brigade said no development should be permitted on the racecourse, maidans, Shivaji Park and Sanjay Gandhi National Park.
"Aarey Milk Colony is an extension of the [Sanjay Gandhi] National Park and should be treated as forestland and given to the forest department," Goenka said. "In the next 15 years, nothing will be left of Aarey; it will be destroyed."
Goenka warned that the BMC was planning to revive the Goregaon-Mulund-Link Road project, an extension of the Film City Road that will go through the national park. "Forty years ago this road project was stalled by the Bombay high court and now the civic body wants to revive it despite a stay order," he said.