AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2020

Subscribe

RSS Feed img




Bikram Chatterji & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (continued)

1. Rinku Computech Private Limited Paid-Up Capital

Patel Advance JV

8,25,00,000

Case Enterprises Ltd

10,00,000

Manjeet Singh

16,00,000

MSB Software Technologies

2,40,000

Anil Kumar Sharma

9,85,000

Bhushan Sharma

34,00,000

Digital India

19,59,110

KK Shukla

9,00,000

RV Consultant Service

95,00,000

Sundry Advances

26,99,000

Sunita Bhagwani

20,00,000

Saffron Propmart Consultancy Pvt Ltd

7,10,00,000

TOTAL

17,77,83,110

 

Date

 

Particulars

Transaction

Balance

28-03-2018

 

Balance as on 28/03/2018

 

4,06,50,815

29-05-2018

Less:

Payment to Saffron Propmart Consultancy Private Limited

3,90,00,000

 

 

Less:

Payment to Preeti Jaiswal

1,50,000

 

 

Less:

Other Payments

5,90,771

 

 

 

Balance before proceeds from FDR

 

9,10,044

 

 

Receipts From FDR 31-07-2018

 

 

 

Add:

Proceeds from FDR

9,86,19,983

 

 

 

Balance after proceeds from FDR

 

9,95,30,027

 

 

Payments made out of receipts from FDR

 

 

31-07-2018

Less:

Net Payment to Saffron Propmart Consultancy Private Limited

3,20,00,000

 

01-08-2018

Less:

Payment to Vandana Wadhwa

2,00,00,000

 

23-10-2018

Less:

Payment to Ample Hotels & Resorts

1,00,00,000

 

23-10-2018

Less:

Payment to Moral Sales

1,00,00,000

 

23-10-2018

Less:

Payment to Mahalaxmi Enterprises

1,00,00,000

 

23-10-2018

Less:

Payment to Annex IT Distributors

70,00,000

 

23-10-2018

Less:

Payment to Anjali Buildcon

1,00,00,000

 

Other Payments

 

 

1,61,904

 

TOTAL

 

 

 

9,91,61,904

Balance as on 28-10-2018

 

3,68,123 142

24. Misuse of Bank Loan funds (Volume II Page No. 426-457) Diversion of loan funds for unapproved purposes Amrapali group of companies obtained funds primarily from following sources:

a) Home buyers funds against construction linked progress;

b) In the form of loans (term loan, working capital/cash credit limits) from banks against construction linked progress; and

c) Homebuyers also availed housing loans from banks for purchasing flats in Amrapali projects Banks granted loans to Amrapali group under certain terms and conditions which included utilisation of loan funds for:

a) Payment of cost of land and lease rental to Noida authorities;

b) Payment of construction cost of projects.

Observation

1. The amounts disbursed were not utilised for payment of cost of land or for payment of lease rentals or for payment of construction cost. The banks did not monitor utilisation of funds granted by them. In fact, these funds were diverted as loans to related and/or unrelated entities which was ultimately utilised in building assets/purposes which were unapproved by the banks. The banks acted as mute spectator to unapproved diversion which was almost happening evidently in all banking transactions.

2. While obtaining loan funds, Amrapali group hypothecated land on which project was being undertaken as well as building under construction as well as material lying at project, leaving nothing with home buyers for recovery of their payments.

3. It is also observed that the loan funds were routed through several bank accounts of the same company and thereafter routed to third parties whereby trying to misguide the flow of funds. It clearly means these transactions had no substance and were made only to mislead.

1. In the case of Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt Ltd: Bank of Baroda (Rs.75 crore), Union Bank of India (Rs.50 crore) and Corporation Bank (Rs.25 crore) together approved term loan amounting to Rs.150 crore to develop a group housing project at Sector-126, Noida. These funds were granted against the aforesaid term loan, the banks secured first charge by way of assignment or creation of security interest of-

(i) All the rights, title, interest benefits, claims & demands whatsoever of the borrower in -

(a) permits, approval, clearances, etc. in respect of project being financed.

(b) any letter of credit, guarantee, performance bond, corporate guarantee, bank guarantee, provided by any party under the project. (ii) All the receivables, reserves, book debts, bank accounts, including the Escrow account & all other incomes, present & future pertaining to the projects being financed.

(iii) All insurance contracts, insurance proceeds. (iv) Charge on the specific reserve to be created by Ultra Home Construction Private Limited, the holding company by contributing 10% of their profits to address the contingent liabilities of their subsidiaries. The banks also secured second charge over the land & buildings (First charge is with Noida Authority). Also hypothecated raw Material, work in progress (pari passu charge over the project assets). Immediately on receipt, these funds were diverted to several third parties as stated

S.No.

Particulars

Amount

1

U Tek Sales Corporation

6,97,39,500

2

Taneja Building material Suppliers

4,24,01,000

3

Devki Nandan Trading Co

3,00,00,000

4

Guru Kripa Traders-2

3,00,00,000

5

Shri Balaji Cement & Hardware

2,89,61,000

6

Investor Clinic Infratech Private Limited

2,00,00,000

7

Mauria Udyog Limited

3,00,00,000

8

Shiva Trders

2,00,00,000

9

Shiv Traders

1,75,00,000

10

Om Traders

1,35,00,000

11

Lakshmi Steel

1,20,81,351

12

Mahaveer Enterprises

1,00,00,000

13

Sidhivinayak Trading Company

1,00,00,000

14

Rama Trading Company

75,00,000

15

Uday Enterprises

69,50,500

16

Orient Trading Company

68,96,800

17

Kartikey Enterprises

68,72,600

18

Dayal Traders

68,42,300

19

R.K. Enterprises

67,50,500

20

MahaLuxmi Traders

67,32,500

21

Purnima Steel Syndicate

65,71,972

22

New Payal Traders

64,50,500

23

Shyam Sales Corporation

64,38,700

24

Kishan Steel Corporation

62,53,700

25

Shri Ganesh Trading Company

62,50,500

26

Arhaan Enterprises

62,17,570

27

Gayatri Traders

59,42,500

28

Lakshmi Steels

53,42,600

29

Guru Kripa Traders

50,00,000

30

Guru Nanak Trading Company

50,00,000

31

R R Enterprises

50,00,000

32

Rohit Steel

50,00,000

33

Shree Ji Trading Company

50,00,000

34

Shri Hari Trading Company

50,00,000

35

G.S. Enterprises

49,50,500

36

A.B Enterprises

48,16,654

37

Amit Steel

40,00,000

38

Barnala Steel Industries Ltd

36,72,008

39

S.R Steel

34,92,054

40

Kumar Trading Company

32,45,859

41

Quality Synthetics Private Limited

25,00,000

42

Shri Bankey Bihari Trading Company

25,00,000

43

Jayem Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd

23,15,400

44

SBL Construction Private Limited

22,10,040

45

ANALCO ( INDIA ) PVT LTD

21,86,728

46

Kumar Trading CO

19,53,325

47

BUILD TECH INDUSTRIES

19,06,800

48

M. K TRADERS

16,20,370

49

Shree Ram Plywood

14,79,510

50

ARUNACHAL TIMBER TRADERS PVT LTD

13,98,400

51

Naveen Associates

13,60,217

52

Deepak Mehta & Associates

13,50,000

53

Raj Shree Ispat

10,92,584

54

DREAM INTERIORS & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD

10,00,790

55

Aryan Corporate Soloutions Pvt Ltd

10,00,000

56

Astech Marketing Private Limited

6,81,321

57

Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd

5,00,250

58

Amrapali Infrastructure Private Limited

2,94,829

TOTAL

51,37,23,732

Few examples of diversion of funds are as under:

1. Guru Kripa Traders-2 RS. 3 crore was paid as advance to them in October 2010 which remained as it is till January 2011, when expenses for purchase of steel were booked against the aforementioned advance. Below is the extract of relevant portion of ledger.

Date

Particulars

Vch Type

Debit

Credit

Balance

05/10/2010

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

15000000.00

 

15000000.00 Dr

06/10/2010

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

5000000.00

 

20000000.00 Dr

15/10/2010

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

5000000.00

 

25000000.00 Dr

16/10/2010

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

5000000.00

 

30000000.00 Dr

29/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1105440.00

28894560.00 Dr

01/01/2011

STEEL

Pur chase U.P

 

1137012.00

27757548.00 Dr

01/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1127296.00

26630252.00 Dr

01/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1081575.00

25548677.00 Dr

01/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1114169.00

24434508.00 Dr

02/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1096914.00

23337594.00 Dr

02/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1078802.00

22258792.00 Dr

03/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1091563.00

21167229.00 Dr

03/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

858603.00

20308626.00 Dr

04/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1107007.00

19201619.00 Dr

04/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1084429.00

18117190.00 Dr

05/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1077003.00

17040187.00 Dr

05/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1062433.00

15977754.00 Dr

05/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1054560.00

14923194.00 Dr

06/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1112498.00

13810696.00 Dr

06/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1118674.00

12692022.00 Dr

07/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1034488.00

11657534.00 Dr

07/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1087996.00

10569538.00 Dr

08/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1082110.00

9487428.00 Dr

08/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1054092.00

8433336.00 Dr

09/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1116534.00

7316802.00 Dr

10/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1109399.00

6207403.00 Dr

10/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1073727.00

5133676.00 Dr

10/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1087996.00

4045680.00 Dr

11/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1062669.00

2983011.00 Dr

11/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

889730.00

2093281.00 Dr

12/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1023600.00

1069681.00 Dr

13/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

1097561.00

27880.00 Cr

31/03/2012

REBETE & DISCOUNT

Journal

27880.00

 

 

30027880.00

30027880.00

 


2. Shri Balaji Cement & Hardware RS. 2.08 crore was paid as advance to them towards the end of March 2011 against which expense was booked on 31st March 2011 and continued till 1st week of April 2011. It was noticed that the same person was selling steel, bricks, cement, rodi sand, badarpur, which itself is in unorganised sector and is questionable.

Date

Particulars

Vch Type

Debit

Credit

Balance

19/03/2011

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

3949500.00

 

3949500.00 Dr

21/03/2011

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

3851500.00

 

7801000.00 Dr

26/03/2011

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

6450500.00

 

14251500.00 Dr

28/03/2011

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

6550800.00

 

20802300.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

456225.00

20346075.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

490875.00

19855200.00 Dr

31/03/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

495666.00

19359534.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

471345.00

18888189.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

496650.00

18391539.00 Dr

31/03/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

483946.00

17907593.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

505313.00

17402280.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

525945.00

16876335.00 Dr

31/03/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

27300.00

16849035.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

493763.00

16355272.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

476280.00

15878992.00 Dr

31/03/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

470905.00

15408087.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

502425.00

14905662.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

510678.00

14394984.00 Dr

31/03/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

469124.00

13925860.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

501843.00

13424017.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

438375.00

12985642.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

750750.00

12234892.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

754950.00

11479942.00 Dr

31/03/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

766725.00

10713217.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

782513.00

9930704.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

754320.00

9176384.00 Dr

31/03/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

767644.00

8408740.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

779625.00

7629115.00 Dr

31/03/2011

BADARPUR

Purchase U.P

 

778260.00

6850855.00 Dr

31/03/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

788288.00

6062567.00 Dr

01/04/2011

Rodi

Purchase U.P

 

884331.00

5178236.00 Dr

01/04/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

931392.00

4246844.00 Dr

01/04/2011

Rodi

Purchase U.P

 

882872.00

3363972.00 Dr

01/04/2011

Bricks

Purchase U.P

 

853965.00

2510007.00 Dr

01/04/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

844356.00

1665651.00 Dr

02/04/2011

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

2310500.00

 

3976151.00 Dr

02/04/2011

Bank of Baroda A/C No - Payment 21580200000079

 

5848200.00

 

9824351.00 Dr

02/04/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

935550.00

8888801.00 Dr

02/04/2011

Sand

Purchase U.P

 

839969.00

8048832.00 Dr

04/04/2011

Bricks

Purchase U.P

 

876120.00

7172712.00 Dr

04/04/2011

Sand

Purchase U.P

 

831527.00

6341185.00 Dr

05/04/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

841333.00

5499852.00 Dr

05/04/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

849350.00

4650502.00 Dr

06/04/2011

Bricks

Purchase U.P

 

884147.00

3766355.00 Dr

06/04/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

284130.00

3482225.00 Dr

07/04/2011

Rodi

Purchase U.P

 

884321.00

2597904.00 Dr

07/04/2011

Cement

Purchase U.P

 

931392.00

1666512.00 Dr

12/04/2011

Bricks

Purchase U.P

 

872193.00

794319.00 Dr

12/04/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

853780.00

59461.00 Cr

28961000.00

29020461.00

 

Closing Balance

 

59461.00

 

 

 

29020461.00

29020461.00

 


3. Investor Clinic Infratech Private Limited It is evident from the books of accounts that loan funds were utilized for payment of RS. 2 crore who had invoiced the company for brokerage expense which is not construction linked payment. Brokerage is an indirect expense, incurred for the sale of flat. The banks had granted funds for construction activity and not for sale activity. This is clearly diversion of loan funds to unapproved means.

4. Shiva Traders RS. 2 crore was paid as advance on 9th October 2010 against which subsequently invoices for purchase of steel were booked in December 2010 only to adjust the balance.

Date

Particulars

Vch Type

Debit

Credit

Balance

09/10/2010

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

2,00,00,000

 

2,00,00,000

11/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,39,959

1,89,60,041

13/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,39,964

1,79,20,077

14/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

8,31,947

1,70,88,130

15/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

12,47,950

1,58,40,180

16/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

12,47,945

1,45,92,235

17/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

14,55,941

1,31,36,294

18/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

12,47,958

1,18,88,336

20/12/2010

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,39,965

1,08,48,371

01/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

8,47,103

1,00,01,268

03/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,55,136

89,46,132

04/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,51,612

78,94,520

05/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,63,874

68,30,646

06/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,85,323

57,45,323

07/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,48,579

46,96,744

08/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,77,182

36,19,562

10/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,73,193

25,46,369

11/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

10,79,473

14,66,896

12/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

8,08,790

6,58,106

13/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

6,56,927

1,179

31/03/2011

Short & Excess A/c

Journal

 

1,179

 

20000000.00

2,00,00,000

 

5. Om Traders RS. 1.35 crore was paid in September 2010 against which subsequently invoices for purchase of steel were booked in December 2010 only to adjust the balance.

Date

Particulars

Vch Type

Debit

Credit

Balance

02/06/2010

BOM-SEC51 A/C No - 60036386553

Payment

50,00,000

 

50,00,000

03/06/2010

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,76,488

41,23,512

24/06/2010

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,20,241

32,03,271

03/07/2010

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

7,57,796

24,45,475

04/07/2010

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

7,56,000

16,89,475

05/07/2010

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

7,20,421

9,69,054

10/08/2010

Steel Purchase

Purchase U.P

 

9,77,734

8,680

14/09/2010

HDFC BANK(L.N)

Payment

50,00,000

 

49,91,320

22/09/2010

BOM-SEC51 A/C No - 60036386553

Payment

60,00,000

 

1,09,91,320

27/09/2010

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

85,00,000

 

1,94,91,320

01/10/2010

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

50,00,000

 

2,44,91,320

22/10/2010

BOM-SEC51 A/C No - 60036386553

Payment

1,50,00,000

 

3,94,91,320

25/10/2010

HDFC BANK(C.P)- 14018640000045

Payment

1,00,00,000

 

4,94,91,320

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,90,150

4,85,01,170

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,49,200

4,75,51,970

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,98,025

4,65,53,945

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,48,518

4,56,05,427

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,18,750

4,46,86,677

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,06,203

4,37,80,474

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

7,80,780

4,29,99,694

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,45,000

4,20,54,694

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

11,08,275

4,09,46,419

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,41,850

4,00,04,569

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

12,81,000

3,87,23,569

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,06,780

3,78,16,789

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,08,523

3,69,08,266

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

7,38,203

3,61,70,063

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

11,24,928

3,50,45,135

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,70,305

3,40,74,830

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,93,550

3,31,81,280

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,91,030

3,22,90,250

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,94,548

3,13,95,702

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,49,450

3,05,46,252

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,31,718

2,96,14,534

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,31,718

2,86,82,816

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,80,530

2,78,02,286

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,63,375

2,68,38,911

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U. P

 

10,62,810

2, 57,76,101

01/02/2011

Hardw are & Sanitary Items

Purchase U.P

 

9,29,198

2,48,46,903

01/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,13,750

2,40,33,153

02/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,56,800

2,31,76,353

03/0 2/2011

Hardware & Sanitary Items

Purchase U.P

 

11,98,050

2,19,78,303

04/02/2011

Hardware & Sanitary Items

Purchase U.P

 

9,85,950

2,09,92,353

05/02/2011

Hardware & Sanitary Items

Purchase U.P

 

10,58,925

1,99,33,428

06/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,39,750

1,89,93,678

07/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,04,825

1,81,88,853

08/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,50,250

1,72,38,603

09/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,80,824

1,63,57,779

09/02/2011

Hardware & Sanitary Items

Purchase U.P

 

8,30,771

1,55,27,008

10/02/2011

Hardware & Sanitary Items

Purchase U.P

 

7,70,921

1,47,56,087

11/02/2011

Hardware & Sanitary Items

Purchase U.P

 

7,88,130

1,39,67,957

12/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,03,693

1,30,64,264

13/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,31,180

1,22,33,084

14/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

6,44,532

1,15,88,552

14/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,58,073

1,06,30,479

15/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,56,802

96,73,677

16/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,25,344

87,48,333

17/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,03,231

78,45,102

18/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

6,48,732

71,96,370

18/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,02,578

63,93,792

19/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,49,912

55,43,880

20/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,77,550

45,66,330

21/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,68,004

36,98,326

22/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

10,56,930

26,41,396

23/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,29,500

18,11,896

24/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

9,21,413

8,90,483

25/02/2011

Hardware Item

Purchase U.P

 

8,79,564

10,919

31/03/2012

REBETE & DISCOUNT

Journal

 

10,919

 

54500000.00

5,45,00,000

 

6. Mauria Udyog Limited RS. 3 crore was diverted to the company on 29th September 2010 and 30th March 2011 for RS. 1 crore & 2 crore respectively as advance and the same was subsequently booked against purchase of steel in January 2011 and May 2011 only to adjust the balance.

Date

Particulars

Vch Type

Debit

Credit

Balance

29/09/2010

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

1,00,00,000

 

1,00,00,000

14/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

17,43,440

82,56,560

14/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

17,87,807

64,68,753

14/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

17,77,211

46,91,542

14/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

17,81,419

29,10,123

16/01/2011

STEEL

Purch ase U.P

 

22,16,525

6,93,598

20/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

2,96,570

3,97,028

20/01/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

2,97,012

1,00,016

30/03/2011

Bank of Baroda A/C No - 21580200000079

Payment

2,00,00,000

 

2,01,00,016

13/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

22,15,039

1,78,84,977

16/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

20,97,410

1,57,87,567

17/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

22,02,653

1,35,84,914

17/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

21,12,682

1,14,72,232

30/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

21,09,193

93,63,039

30/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

21,72,250

71,90,789

30/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

22,02,076

49,88,713

30/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

20,00,371

29,88,342

31/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

22,91,842

6,96,500

31/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

21,58,699

14,62,199

31/05/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

23,54,459

38,16,658

22/08/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

20,90,696

59,07,354

22/08/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

12,11,312

71,18,666

22/08/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

19,90,348

91,09,014

22/08/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

20,68,279

1,11,77,293

22/08/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

15,67,565

1,27,44,858

22/08/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

23,08,793

1,50,53,651

22/08/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

22,68,774

1,73,22,425

22/08/2011

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

22,56,451

1,95,78,876

01/01/2012

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

22,46,743

2,18,25,619

01/01/2012

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

23,01,728

2,41,27,347

01/01/2012

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

23,25,626

2,64,52,973

01/01/2012

STEEL

Purchase U.P

 

23,49,055

2,88,02,028

3,00,00,000

5,88,02,028

 

 

Closing Balance

2,88,02,028

 

 

5,88,02,028

5,88,02,028

 

1. In the case of Amrapali Princely Estate Pvt Ltd: Syndicate bank and Bank of India together approved term loan amounting to Rs.100 crore to develop a housing project at Plot no Gh- 02/A, Sector-76, Noida over an area of 15.15 acres consisting of 19 towers. These funds were granted on 13th April 2013 and 15th May 2013, 6th March 2014 and 28th March 2014 for Rs. 25 crore each time.

Against the aforesaid term loan, the banks secured first pari passu charge over the entire project assets of Amrapali Princely Estate Pvt Ltd (including building under construction & construction material kept at site) & receivable excluding advance booking money. The banks also secured second pari passu charge (with first charge on land with Greater Noida Authorities) by way of equitable mortgage on 61300 square metres of the project land at plot no.Gh-02,Sector-76, Noida Immediately on receipt, these funds were diverted to several third parties as stated hereunder:

S.No.

Particulars

Payments

1

FIXED DEPOSIT BOI

8,25,00,000

2

Bhagirathi Tubes B/p 6,51,80,135 3 Raj Shree Ispat

4,20,00,000

4

Vrindavan Buildcon Pvt Ltd

4,00,00,000

5

Kapila Buildhome Pvt Ltd.

3,70,00,000

6

Sameer Builtaid Pvt Ltd.

3,32,07,919

7

Gaurisuta Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

3,00,00,000

8

Radius Synergies Pvt Ltd

2,90,00,000

9

Lakshmi Steels

2,87,00,000

10

Arhaan Enterprises

2,25,00,000

11

Bank of India Loan A/c No- 605965410000120

1,70,25,946

12

GaurisutaBuildhome Pvt Ltd.

1,40,00,000

13

SBL Construction P Ltd (Tower C & D)

1,30,77,888

14

Shri Balaji International

1,19,58,509

15

Jaypeeco India

1,11,79,965

16

Lakshmi SteelB/p

1,00,00,000

17

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Pvt Ltd

84,22,323

18

SPS Buildtech Pvt Ltd (Tower-B & K)

84,06,223

19

Syndicate Bank A/c No-87801010004689

32,00,000

20

Shriv Build Mat Pvt Ltd.

20,00,000

21

Ashtech Marketing Pvt Ltd.

16,62,747

22

GAURISUTA INFRASOLUTION PVT.LTD

10,00,000

23

AAUSH RAJ

7,95,339

24

Pradhan Projects

1,02,271

TOTAL

51,29,19,265

(i) Fixed deposit - The Company made a fixed deposit of Rs. 8.25 Crore and out of which Rs. 3.75cr was outstanding as on 31st March 2015 which we could find if utilized for business purpose. Rs. 4.50 cr. was used for repayment of Loan

(ii) Radius Synergies Pvt Ltd - It is seen that RS. 1.55 crore was given as advances since 2013 and continued giving advances till 2015 to this party. Out of these funds an amount of Rs.1 crore is outstanding till 31st March 2015. Out of advances for Rs.1.55 crore, expenses were booked only for Rs.52 lakh for labour charges in 2014. The veracity of the expenses booked is to be examined (iii) Shriv Build Mat India Pvt - It is seen that Rs.20 Lakh was given as advance in 2014 which has not returned subsequently and no expense was also booked.

2. In the case of Amrapali Eden Park Developers Pvt Ltd: Eden Park Developers Pvt Ltd received term loan of RS. 45 crore for development of project 'Amrapali Eden Park' in March 2013 from Corporation Bank to develop a housing project. Against this, the company mortgaged plot No 27, Block F, Sector-50, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. Immediately on receipt, these funds were diverted to several third parties as stated hereunder:

Name of party

Amount (RS. in crore)

Gaurisuta Infrastructure Private Limited

2.00

Siddhi Interiors Private Limited

0.40

Ishaan Housing & Construction

1.00

Ishaan Infotech

1.00

Ishaan Infraestates India Private Limited

1.00

Reinfo Tech Estates Private Limited

1.00

Gaurisuta Infrastructure Private Limited

2.48

S.R. Steels

0.50

Tashima Construction Private Limited

0.50

Witty One Stop Solution Private Limited

0.50

Happy Worker Private Limited

0.50

Spyy Traders Private Limited

0.50

New Tech Shelters Private

0.50

BOM-CA-60024309220

3.00

Dynamic Realcom Private Limited

2.00

Financial World Private Limited

2.00

Total

18.88

25. OTHER OBSERVATIONS

1. Cozy Habitat Builders Pvt. Ltd. It is holding 25% shareholding in Heart Beat City Project Controlled by three Companies namely Three Platinum, Softtech Pvt. Ltd., Pebbles Prolease Pvt. Ltd. and baseline Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Cozy Habitat Builders Pvt. Ltd. Received Rs. 30,00,000 from Amrapaliand Paid Rs. 15,00,000 to Mr. Shiv Priya. We are therefore the opinion thatthat Rs. 15,00,000 should be recovered from Cozy Habitat Builders Pvt. Ltd. and be deposited to the treasury of the Honourable Supreme court.

2. DFC Projects Private Limited The management of DFC Projects Pvt. Ltd. as informed were providing services to Amrapali Group for arranging funds. We found that there invoices were paid within a period of 2-3 days from the date of raising the invoices which raises a doubt whether there were the invoices raised for services rendered or were adjustments. The properties/flats were booked in the name of DFC group about which the directors Mr.Pankaj Sharma and Mr.VinayRai showed total ignorance. Consequent to the questioning they agreed to surrender the flats. (Refer ANNEXURE XIII.6)

3. Chaudhary ENT Udyog (Supplier of Bricks) As per the copy of the receipts issued by Amrapali Group of Companies, it has been observed that the party had paid INR 500,000 in cash on 24th February, 2017 vide receipt number 3074 Dated 24.02.2017 (Copy enclosed) on account of flat Number T6-G06 that was allotted to the said party in Amrapali Grand on account of outstanding amounts due from Amrapali Group of Companies. The Company has not recorded the receipt of the aforesaid amount of INR 500,000 in their books of account. This shows that this money has been taken away by the Management and hence should be recovered from them.

It was further informed by the supplier, that Amrapali Group of Companies committed a fraud since this flat is already sold to Mr. Nikhil Kumar Datta. The party came to know of this on 31st August, 2018, when he received a letter dated 18th August, 2018 from IDBI Bank seeking payment for overdue amount in the name of Mr. Nikhil Kumar Datta. This a serious kind of fraud done by the Amrapali Group of Companies. The party has even written a letter to Police, Uttar Pradesh against the aforesaid fraud. Copy of the said letter to police along with the letter issued by IDBI Bank to Mr. Nikhil Kumar Datta has been enclosed as Annexure 34-D.

4. Closing Inventory as per Audited Financial Statement as on 31st March, 2015 There is no stock list, valuation certificate or any documentary evidence regarding physical verification with the company or in the Statutory Auditors file. We are of the view that these are only arbitrary figures shown in the Audited Financial Statements.

5. Fixed Assets

a) Building Account During the financial year 2013-14 a sum of INR 80.34 crores has been capitalized to Building A/c by crediting various purchase/expense account as per journal voucher passed on 31/03/14 as per the copy of the voucher given below. This entry seems to be a mere adjustment entry since there is no Valuation report on the basis of which these expenses are capitalized to Building account and no working sheet of the same is available. We are of the view that this amount has been taken away by the Management of the Company and this amount should be recovered from them.

6. Royalgolf Link City Projects Private Limited It has been observed that a sum of INR 4 Crores approximately is recoverable from M/s Royalgolf Link City Projects Private Limited (Royalgolf) in the books of Amrapali Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on account of supply of precast materials. Mr. Shiv Priya was the Director of this Company from 26.9.2014 (Date of Incorporation of the company) to 3.4.2017. This Company was formed as SPV for Cozy/Bagadiya Group of Companies with Mr. Shiv Priya as the Director of Royalgolf launched for project "Hemisphere" . Amrapali Group of Companies through Ultra Home Construction Private Limited and Amrapali Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had given loan to Royalgolf mainly for purchase of land and its registration thereof.

A dispute arose amongst the Company in six months of its operations and on 1st April, 2015 a Loan Settlement Agreement was signed between Amrapali Group, Cozy/ Bagadiya Group vide which 30 Villas valuing approximately INR 50.47 cr. were earmarked for Amrapali Group. Amrapali Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Infra) was the Supplier of Precast Building material and they were to supply these materials for "Hemisphere" project worth INR 67 crores approximately. However, Infra could supply only 24% of the contract value and due to difference between Amrapali Group and Royalgolf, the contract was terminated in June, 2017. Proceedings under IBC 2016 were initiated by Royalgolf against Infra and they filed a claim for INR 17.50 crores with the IRP appointed by 159 NCLT. The matter is still in dispute at NCLT for the claimed loan of 17.50 crores lodged by Royalgolf on Amrapali Infra.

7. Hire Charges Received The Group companies had paid hire/erection charges from the various group companies for example Amrapali Infrastructure received Rs.170.15 crores during the period 2008-15. (Volume II - Page 306) It was further observed that there have been no details regarding the equipment given on hire to each company and the basis of raising bills on account of hire charges. It seems that bills for hire charges have been raised on arbitrary basis and there are no comparative quotations for the same available.

26. STATUS OF DATA AVAILABILITY

There is overlapping in accounting data from April 2016 to September 2016 and we found that few entries were entered in FARVISION and few in the tally for the said period. Due to scarcity of time audit not completed of following companies/entities/persons:

  • Amrapali Princely Estate Pvt. Ltd.
  • Jotindra steels & tubes Ltd. The following companies were carved out by Amrapali Group, which are being audited and a report on these companies will be submitted.

1) Prem Mishra Indore.

2) O2 Valley Noida

3) Heart beat city projects Noida.

27. M.S. Dhoni It is observed that the Company Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited has paid a sum of Rs. 6.52 Crores out of the total amount of Rs. 42.22 Crores paid from the Amrapali group of Companies to Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited during the years 2009 - 2015. This sum has been paid on account of Agreements executed by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, CMD for and on behalf of Amrapali Group of Companies with Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited. There is no resolution on record authorizing Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, CMD to enter into an agreement on behalf of all Amrapali group of Companies. There were various agreements as per details given below:

a) Endorsement Agreement dated 22nd November, 2009 According to this agreement Mr. Mahendra Singh Dhoni will make himself available to the Chairmen for three days along with one representative of Rhiti Sports. There are no documents held on record for compliance of this condition.

b) According to the Agreement for sponsorship dated 20th March, 2015, 160 Amrapali Group of Companies got right to advertise as Logo Space at various places in the IPL 2015 for Chennai Super Kings. It is observed that this Agreement is on plain paper and executed only between Amrapali and Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited and there are no signatories on behalf of Chennai Super Kings to this Agreement.

No Resolution in favour of Shri Arun Pandey, Signatory of Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited is attached with the said Agreement. This clearly shows that these Agreements have just been made for payment of amounts to Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited Company are Sham Agreements and made just for making payments to Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited. We feel that Home Buyers money has been diverted illegally and wrongly to Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited and should be recovered from them as the said Agreement in our opinion do not stand the test of Law. Amrapali Mahi Developers Pvt Ltd

  • Mr. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, husband of Ms. Sakshi Singh Dhoni (director of company) was the brand ambassador of Amrapali group and have carried out a number of transactions with respect to endorsement of Amrapali group's projects. He has entered in agreements with other group company.
  • We are informed verbally that this company was incorporated for development of a project in Ranchi. An MOU was also entered between the parties though we were not provided a copy of that. We understand that copy of MOU is available with Mr. Adhikari. In Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited a Flat (Flat No - TCP04) has been booked in the name of Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited by passing an adjustment entry. However Mr Sanjay Pandey of Rhiti Sports Management Pvt Ltd denied booking of any such flat.

He also confirmed that neither the company nor any individual has any flat in Amrapli Group. Mr Pandey confirmed that no due diligence was carried out before accepting the brand endorsement though he informed that brand value and paying capacity was seen. No Agreement was provided though it was agreed that it would be provided by 11th March, 2019. Expenses were reimbursed to Rhiti Entertainment Private Limited a group company, without any agreement.

28. Properties alienated Chart D The group started alienated the properties starting from 2015-16 , and many properties were transferred when the case was pending before the Honourable Court with a criminal mind to alienate the assets. The funds were routed from one account to another and properties were registered in benami names. For the assets sold up to 31/3/2015, we didn't generally find anything in contravention of the details submitted in affidavit Chart D. We have categorized the Chart-D transactions into following 3 categories:

Category A - The properties attached should be sold off and recover the amount.

Category B - The properties attached should continue to be attached.

Category C- The properties attached should be released off.

Name of Company of Amrapali Group

Name of the party to which allotment/sale was made

Area

Category

Date of transfer

Page no of supplementary report

CATEGORY-A

Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd

SKN Hospitality Pvt Ltd

1067.50 sq. mtr.

A

15th March 2017

2791-2796

Amrapali Homes Project Pvt Ltd

Bhuvneshwar land

6.52 Acres

A

Available

2781

Amrapali Homes Project Pvt Ltd

Pradeep Mishra

123171 sq. ft.

A

21st August 2017

2779-2780

Amrapali Smartc ity Developers Pvt Ltd

Sarvome Housing Pvt Ltd

7108 sq. ft.

A

10th July 2017

2768-2769

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

High Life Commercial.

8500 sq. ft

A

Available

2770

Amrapali Smartcity Developers Pvt Ltd

Bihariji Developers Pvt Ltd

22621 sq. ft.

A

10th July 2017

2767-2768

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Ltd

Bihariji High Rise Pvt Ltd

31202 sq. ft.

A

10th July 2017

2782-2783

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Ltd

Bihariji High Rise Pvt Ltd

13928 sq. ft.

A

10th July 2017

2782-2783

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt Ltd

 

Bihariji High Rise Pvt Ltd 7020 sq. ft.

A

10th July 2017

2785-2786

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt Ltd

Bihariji Properties Pvt Ltd

22621 sq. ft.

A

10th July 2017

2785-2786

Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd

Shri Viniyak Avas Pvt Ltd

6120 sq. ft.

A

2nd April 2014

2790

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

Sarvome Housing Pvt Ltd

16500 sq. ft

A

10th July 2017

2775-2776

CATEGORY-B

Hi-Tech City Developers Pvt Ltd

Anita Chandok

4027.31 sq. yards

B

21st July 2016

2755-2756

Amrapali Smartcity Developers Pvt Ltd

SBL Construction Pvt Ltd

14500 sq. ft.

B

23rd August 2016

2765

Amrapali Smartcity Developers Pvt Ltd

SBL Construction Pvt Ltd

18450 sq. ft.

B

23rd August 2016

2765

Amrapali Smartcity Developers Pvt Ltd

Bhatia Properties 6120 sq. ft.

 

B

Available

2766

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt Ltd

Bhatia Properties

22200 sq. ft.

B

6th May 2015

2777

Hi-Tech City Developers Pvt Ltd

Sarbjit Leasing and Finance Company

1245.23 sq. yards

B

23rd July 2016

2756-2758

Amrapali Hospitality Services Pvt Ltd

Vaishnavi Vahini Mount Life Hospitality Pvt Ltd

10261 sq. ft.

B

13th November 2017

2758-2764

Sangam Colonizers Pvt Ltd

Anjali Consultants

3.13 Hectare

B

24th April 2017

2753

Amrapali Hospitality Services Pvt Ltd

Dr. J P Sharma

2.1 Bigha

B

June 2017

2764

Amrapali Homes Project Pvt Ltd

Ajit Kumar & Kriti Agarwal

11245 sq. ft.

B

9th October 2017

2780-2781

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Ltd

Deepak Kumar

1560 sq. ft.

B

20th August 2016

2784

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

Bihariji Developers Pvt Ltd

16000 sq. ft.

B

10th July 2017

2770-2771

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

SBL Construction Pvt Ltd

6500 sq. ft.

B

5th July 2017

2771-2772

Amrapali Silicon City Pvt Ltd

SBL Construction Pvt Ltd

20640 sq. ft.

B

2nd May 2017

2778

Amrapali Silicon City Pvt Ltd

Nirala India Developers Pvt Ltd

16436 sq. ft.

B

15th October 2015

2778-2779

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

Mr. Vinay Garg

11000 sq. ft.

B

15th February 2018

2769

Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd

V. Thiruvenkitam & Thushara Reddy

82.937 Cents

B

18th January 2012

2795-2796

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt Ltd

One Flameboyant Realty Pvt Ltd

16360 sq. mtr.

B

25th September 2013

2786-2787

CATEGORY-C

Sangam Colonizers Pvt Ltd

Radheshyam Yadav, Keshav Yadav, Surender Yadav, Narayan Yadav & Lakhan Yadav

3.28 Hectare

C

19th Feb 2015

2754-2755

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt

Ltd PSK Finance Solution Pvt Ltd

14853 sq. ft.

C

15th July 2014

2782

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Ltd

 

Star Land Craft Pvt Ltd 23395 sq. mtr.

C

31st July 2013

2784-2785

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

Shri Balaji Hi Tech Construction Pvt Ltd

12479 sq. mtr.

C

31st July 2013

2772-2773

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

K V Developers Pvt Ltd

19986 sq. mtr.

C

7th June 2013

2773

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

J M Housing Ltd

33537 sq. mtr.

C

5th June 2013

2773-2774

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

Samridhi Realty Home Pvt Ltd

27989 sq. mtr.

C

17th June 2013

2774

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt Ltd

Hawelia Builders Pvt Ltd

14920 sq. mtr.

C

5th June 2013

2787-2788

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt Ltd

DSD Homes Pvt Ltd

14760 sq. mtr.

C

20th June 2013

2788

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt Ltd

Elegant Infracon Pvt Ltd

14590 sq. mtr.

C

1st June 2013

2788-2790

Amrapali Smartcity Developers Pvt Ltd

PSK Finance Solution Pvt Ltd

12500 sq. ft.

C

15th April 2016

2766

29. Further Assets To be Attached

  • Inventory of plots at Jaipur - of company names Sangam Colonisers Pvt Ltd
  • Amrapali Power & Cement Pvt Ltd - Land from Charu Rai yet to be identified, Land from UPSIDC yet to be identified.
  • Vinayaka Projects at Greater Noida

30. Statement of cash flow

Receipt and Payment Statement (Amount in crores)

S.No

Name of the Company

Amount received as per Chart-B of affidavit of promoters submitted on 3rd Dec'18

Cost of Construction taken from latest audited financial statements available

Remarks/Assumptions

1

Received from Customers

 

 

The group received Rs 11573 Crore from th homebuyers and spent Only Rs. 7,389 Crore on construction including land payment to authorities. It is pertinent to note it includes borrowing cost also. Any amount of expenditure which was outstanding is not considered in the given tabe and it is prepared on the bsia of audited financial statements latest available upto March 2015 except one company for which it is March 2016. It was found at any given point of time the amount received from homebuyers was never

 

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt Ltd

1050.83

573

 

 

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

1270.5

549

 

 

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Ltd

1563.17

594

 

 

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Pvt Ltd

1186.66

828

 

 

Amrapali Silicon City Pvt Ltd

1468.79

1126

 

 

Amrapali Smartcity Developers Pvt Ltd

1230.87

780

 

 

Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt Ltd

835.69

566

 

 

Hi Tech City Developers Pvt Ltd

113.18

104.16

 

 

Amrapali Eden Park Developers Pvt Ltd

171

175.14

 

 

Sangam Colonizer Pvt Ltd

9.58

7.61

 

 

Amrapali Grand

217

104.98

 

 

Amrapali Princely Estate Pvt in short Ltd

724.55

578

 

 

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt Ltd

505.19

355

 

 

Amrapali Homes Project Pvt Ltd*

103

103

 

 

Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd*

1123.12

945

 

 

Sub Total (A)

11573.13

7388.89

 

2

Sales of Property/FSI/Facilities

 

358.68

As per affidavit

3

Bank

2712.02

1827

The amount paid to bank as per Chart B of affidavit is 2394 crore. We could not verify the number of amount paid in absence of details being not available. We worked out the otstanding loan amount from audited financial statements of 2015.

4

FDI/Financial Institution

520

65

The amount borrowed in against private equity which has no liabilty of principal and interest and the investor would recover his its investments by selling the shares on/off market. Investment in the form of compulsory convertible debenture and optionally convertible would have interest liabilty upto date of conversion. the debenture were note converted on due dates . Furthermore the amount invested was diverted immediately upon receipt to unapproved purposes.

5

Investors

300

200

Number has been taken from affidavit and has not been verified by us.

6

Partner Investment

150

150

Number has been taken from affidavit and has not been verified by us.

Sub Total (B)

4040.7

2242

 

Grand Total (A+B)

15613.83

9630.89

 

Difference

5982.94

Short cashflow

1 The above does not include the cash received from customers.

2 * Assumed the figure as given in the affidavit. 31. Mrs. Manju Rajpal and Mr. Ramesh Rajpal Mrs. Manju Rajpal and Mr. Ramesh Rajpal HUF each invested Rs 7.5 166 crore in May 2011 on interest in Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited. The rate of interest is 18%. However he claimed in his submission that it was an investment in residential property for his staff because he was having a plan to shift his business operations in Noida. He submitted that he acquired this property for residence of his staff. On reviewing the return of income of Mrs. Manju Rajpal (Refer annexure S-1 of supplementary report page no. 2823) and Mr. Ramesh Rajpal we found that amount invested in various units as given below:

1. Mr. Ramesh Rajpal - Unit No A-388 admeasuring 20,200 sq. feet in Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited for RS 7.5 Cr. However, due to company's inability to handover the said villa, 8 units were allotted instead. Refer Annexure S-2 of supplementary report page no. 2824 We found Unit No A-388 in Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited is booked in the name of Mr. Joginder Sharma on 13th February, 2016 admeasuring area 2525 sq. feet for a value of Rs 1.29 crore. It depicts very clearly that there was no unit admeasuring an area of 20,200 sq feet and the amount was invested for a purpose to avail Capital Gain benefits and earn interest on investment at the rate 18% p.a. It is recommended that the units allotted as per Annexure S-2 of supplementary report page no. 2824 should be treated as vacant and be available for sale.

2. Mrs. Manju Rajpal - Unit No A-396 admeasuring 17,675 sq. feet in Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited for RS 7.5 Cr claimed as Long term Capital gain. It is claimed, due to company's inability to handover the said villa, 53 units were allotted instead. Refer Annexure S-3 of supplementary report page no. 2825-2826. We found Unit No A-396 in Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited is booked in the name of Mr. Satya Vir Srivastava on 14th July, 2014 admeasuring area 2525 sq. feet for a value of Rs 65.5 Lakh. It depicts very clearly that there was no unit admeasuring an area of 17,675 sq feet and the amount was invested for a purpose to avail Capital Gain benefits and earn interest on investment at the rate 18% p.a.

It is recommended that the units allotted as per Annexure S-3 of supplementary report page no. 2825-2826 should be treated as vacant and be available for sale. The amount invested in residential property is claimed as Capital gain. Subsequently in the year 2017, the villas were shifted from Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited to Royalgolf Link, Amrapali Princely Estate Private Limited, Amrapali Zodiac Developers Private Limited, Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited, Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited and Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited and the villas numbers are attached. (Refer Annexure 2.2 and Annexure 2.3) For the amount invested of Rs 15 crore, Rs 12.25 crore has been paid to him in the form of interest at the rate of 18%. Exotique Exports, an entity of Mr Rajpal, invested Rs 5 crore in 2010 at the interest rate of 18%.

It had been paid Rs 4.55 till February 2016 in the form of interest. It is submitted that 5 units namely Unit no. 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 were purchased in Amrapali Commercial Complex 167 Cum Corporate Hub at Plot No. Sector - 2 Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana for Rs 5Cr however the value of 5 units as per Builder Buyer Agreement is Rs 3.19 Cr. 32. M/s Surbhaee Advertising Private Limited (Immovable Property-A3A, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi)

(i) Mr. Paramjit Gandhi, Mr. Gagandeep Gandhi & Ms. Jasmine Gandhi are the directors of the company M/s Surbhaee Advertising Private Limited. The shares of M/s Surbhaee Advertising Private Limited were purchased by Mr. Paramjeet Gandhi & M/s Special Tools Private Limited (a company owned by him & his family) for Rs 1.59 crore for which no agreement was provided by them.

(ii) It was informed that principal business of the company is Advertising of Projects. However no income has been earned from its principal business activity or any other source.

(iii) The company is holding an immovable property at A3A Maharani Bagh, New Delhi admeasuring approximately 800 sq yards. It is also stated that the family of Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma is residing in the same house against which no rent deed is agreed between Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma & Mr. Paramjit Gandhi (Surbhaee Advertising Private Limited)

(iv) When asked to Mr. Paramjit Gandhi who resides in Ghaziabad that why he purchased the property in New Delhi 4-5 years back, he replied that he wanted to shift to this property. However the fact is that he has never shifted to Delhi & all the renovation & maintenance work was overlooked by Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma.

(v) The company has also taken loan of Rs. 25 crores from Aditya Birla Finance Limited in the FY 2016-17 against the hypothecation of the property which was purchased for Rs 1.59 crore. This indicates the property value was much higher on the date of transfer.

(vi) The company has advanced Rs. 25.88 crores as short term loans & advances to the following parties-

1. Chandan Homes Private Limited- Rs. 6.89 crores.

2. Inderjeet Arora- Rs. 1.25 crores.

3. Ishwar Steels- Rs. 2.18 crores

4. Jai Kishan Estate Developers Private Limited- Rs. 1.33 crores.

5. Shekri Finance & Investment Private Limited- Rs. 3.10 crores.

6. Shubha Green Private Limited- Rs. 4.77 crores.

7. Special Tools Private Limited- Rs. 3.37 crores.

8. PJ Buildtech Private Limited- Rs. 0.55 crores.

9. Paradise System Private Limited- Rs. 0.52 crores.

10. Jiwan Kumar Arora- Rs. 0.50 crores.

11. Shubhkamna Buildtech Private Limited- Rs. 0.25 crores.

(vii) The company has also received Rs. 2.35 crores & Rs. 3.55 crores from Mr. Ritik Kumar Sinha & Miss Swapnil Shikha respectively, also directors in M/s Surbhaee Advertising Private Limited in the FY 2016- 17 out of funds received from Amrapali group of companies enrouted via the account of Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma.

(viii) It implies that the property which was bought for Rs 1.59 crore, the amount has been funded out of Amrapali Group funds routed by Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma who is family member and from them to Surbhaee Advertising Private Limited. Two of his family members were made director to have a control on the property of a value of Rs 50 Cr. It further proves that the difference between the value of property and the price at which it was transferred to Mr. Paramjit Gandhi was paid in cash out of cash amount received in Amrapali Group by booking of bogus expenditure and selling the flats undervalued. Opinion Based on the facts stated above, in our opinion the property at A3A Maharani Bagh, New Delhi is a "Property" belongs to Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma/Amrapali group held in the name of the company M/s Surbhaee Advertising Private Limited.

33. Facility Sold It is found that the facilities sold under various projects as shown in Chart M of Affidavit submitted on 3Rd December, 2018 are mere adjustment entries (Refer Annexure S-10 of supplementary report page no. 2958-2959). We found that the buyer is not aware of that he has purchased any land for the mentioned facility. We further found that there is no account in the name of the said buyers in many cases to whom the facilities were sold. It is recommended that the facilities sold so far should be attached.

34. Mr.Prem Mishra We are of the opinion and also given to understand from various sources that the group diverted funds in the range of 500-600 crore in Madhya Pradesh projects in particular Indore. Mr.Prem Mishra has appeared in response to the court notice and he was non-cooperative. We have also received a communication supporting our views, reproduced below- "Good Evening Sir, Hope you are doing well, this is regards Amrapali Scam of CMD Anil Sharma, as per my information CMD has transferred 1 thousand crore to the different Amrapali Townships project of M.P. through Mr. Prem Mishra. The details of the same on paper is available with me. If you can arrange some time and allow me to have a detail discussion of the same, that would be great.Kindly inform me two days prior to the meeting date, as I am from XXXXXX. need to do some arrangements for the same, its a request. Waiting for your response."

We could not complete the examination of Mr.Prem Mishra in Indore project due to paucity of time and request it to be included in the second audit. 35. Heartbeat City Developers Private Limited The project is in the name of 3 companies namely Pebbles Prolease Private Limited, Three Platinum Softech Private Limited and Baseline Infradevelopers Private Limited. The project is an Amrapali group's project which was carved out from Amrapali Group of companies while case was pending before Honorable Supreme Court.

Funds were invested in the project from Amrapali Group through Mr. Amit Wadhwa, Mr. Amit Wadhwa was a partner of 25% each in Pebbles Prolease Private Limited and Three Platinum Softech Private Limited. Amrapali Group launched and advertised the project as Amrapali Group project and the project was named as Amrapali Heartbeat City Developers Private Limited in the agreements. Corporate office was having the same address as Amrapali Corporate Tower in Sector 62, Noida. The purpose of carving out the project from Amrapali is not known.

It is informed that Mr. Vaibhav Jain and Mr. Sankalp Shukla are the key managerial persons. In the absence of accounting records we could not proceed further on the issue.

35. Summary of recoverable amounts

Total recoveries from undermentioned areas:

S. No.

Particulars

Amount in Crores

1

Sale of Flats at lower Prices

321.31

2

Amount receivable from home buyers

3,624.65

3

Amount receivable from buyers of Commercial Area

89.83

4

Unsold Inventory

 

 

i) Flats

1,991.69

 

ii) Commercial Areas

345.78

5

Amount recoverable from

 

 

i) Professional fee

100.53

 

ii) Advances Recoverable

152.24

 

iii) Cash in hand

69.36

 

iv) Other recoverable KMP's and their Relatives:

582.68

6

Diversion of home buyer's funds

3,152.30

7

Non genuine purchases from suppliers

842.42

8

Recovery from Others

32.69

9

Unexplained cash deposits/jewellery

14.94

Total

11,320.42

1. Sale of Flats at lower prices Total amount involved in under-valued transactions in respect of Companies audited by us is Rs.321.31 Crores as per summary given below:

S.No.

Name of the company

Number of Units

Amount (In Crores)

Refer Page Number

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

315

76.02

Volume - I Page No. 205 - Point No. 1

2

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

70

5.88

Volume - I Page No. 222 - Point No. 1

3

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited

261

18.97

Volume - I Page No. 232 - Point No. 1

4

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

468

73.05

Volume - I Page No. 257 - Point No. 1

5

Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited

1,752

24.11

Volume - I Page No. 248 - Point No. 1

6

Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited

122

8.53

2811 (Supplementary Audit Report)

7

Ultra Home Construction Private Limited

524

30.87

2811 (Supplementary Audit Report)

8

AmrapaliCenturian Park Private Limited

1,912

43.12

2811 (Supplementary Audit Report)

9

Amrapali Princely Estate Private Limited

146

6.70

2811 (Supplementary Audit Report)

10

Amrapali Zodiac Developers Private Limited

107

6.75

2811 (Supplementary Audit Report)

11

Amrapali Patel Platinum

179

27.31

2811 (Supplementary Audit Report)

Total

5,856

321.31

 

2. Amount Recoverable from Home Buyers A sum of Rs.3624.65 crores is recoverable from home buyers. Detailed summary is as under:

S.no.

Name of the company

Amount (In Crores)

Refer Page Number

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

2 46.44

Volume - I Page No. 207 - Point No. 2

2

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

200.53

Volume - I Page No.222 - Point No. 2

3

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited

400.00

Volume - I Page No.232 - Point No. 2

4

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

390.00

Volume - I Page No.257 - Point No. 2

5

Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited

724.14

Volume - I Page No.248 - Point No. 2

6

AHS Joint Venture

3.10

Volume - II Page No.276 - Point No. 4

7

Hi Tech City Developers Private Limited (Immediately recoverable)

2.37

Volume - II Page No.283 - Point No. 11

8

Ultra Home Construction Private Limited

65.08

Volume II - Section XXII (Page No. 563- 568)

9

Amrapali Princely Estate Private Limited

28.17

Volume II - Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

10

Amrapali Zodiac Developers Private Limited

26.56

Volume II - Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

11

Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited

1470.94

Volume II - Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

12

Amrapali Centurian Park Private Limited

240.17

Volume II - Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

13

Amrapali Eden Park Private Limited

4.71

Volume II - Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

14

Amrapali Grand

15.56

Volume II - Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

15

Amrapali Homes Project Pvt. Ltd.

6.88

Volume II - Section XXIII (Page No. 569)

Total

3624.65

 


3. Amount recoverable from buyers of Commercial Area A sum of Rs.89.83 crores is recoverable from buyers of Commercial area. Detailed summary is asunder:

S.no.

Name of the company

Amount (In Crores)

Refer Page No.

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

7.14

Volume - I Page No.207- Point No. 3

2

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

1.68

Volume - I Page No.222- Point No. 3

3

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited

19.58

Volume - I Page No.232- Point No. 3

4

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

2.48

Volume - I Page No.257- Point No. 3

5

Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited

6.12

Volume - I Page No.248- Point No. 3

6

Ultra Home Construction Private Limited

38.03

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

7

Amrapali Princely Estate Private Limited

5.50

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

8

Amrapali Zodiac Developers Private Limited

2.08

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

9

Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited

3.58

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

10

Amrapali Eden Park Private Limited

3.64

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

Total

89.83

 

4. Unsold Inventory There is unsold inventory of flats and Commercial areas amounting to Rs.2337.47Crores approximately as per details given below:

a) Unsold Inventory of Flats

S.no.

Name of the company

Number of Units in Residential

Approxima te Realizable Value (In Crores)

Page No. Reference

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

14

14.45

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4a

2

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

329

100.67

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4a

3

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited

183

65.29

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4a

4

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

191

154.25

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4a

5

Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited

1833

660.91

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4a

6

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd.*

1203

412.91

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

7

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt. Ltd.*

981+2

329.34

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

8

Amrapali Eden Park Developers Pvt. Ltd.*

4

2.47

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

9

Amrapali Princely Estate Pvt. Ltd.*

3

4.54

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

10

Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd.*

27

41.48

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

11

Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd.*

459

205.38

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

Total

5,229

1991.69

 

*Estimated Realizable value Noida @ Rs 4,500 approximately psf and Greater Noida @ Rs3,000 approximately psf (Amount in Crores). b) Unsold Inventory of Commercial Area/Shops

S.no.

Name of the Company

Unsold Commercial

Approxim ate Realizable Value (In Crores)

Page No. refere nce Inventory

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

1 Shop

0.71

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4b

2

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

Nursery Schools, NursingHomes and MilkBooth

7.00

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4b

3

Amrapali Smart City

1 Shop

0.49

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4b

 

Developers Private Limited

1 Nursery School

4.00

 

4

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

Nursery School & Milk Booth

11.00

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4b

5

Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited

18 Shops, Nursery Schools, Nursing Homes and Senior Secondary Schools

44.47

Volume - I Page No.39- Point No. 4b

6

Amrapali Eden Park Developers Pvt. Ltd.

1

1.40

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

7

AmrapaliCenturian Park Pvt. Ltd.

17

5.71

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

8

Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd.

318 + 487

271.00

Volume - II Section XXII (Page No. 563 - 568)

Total

345.78 175

 

5. Amount recoverable from Key Managerial Persons and their Relatives a) Professional fees paid to directors Rs.100.53 crore

Name of Director Professional Fees

(As per Affidavit) Rs. in Cr.

(Under Disclosure in Affidavit) Rs. in Cr.

Anil Kumar Sharma

29.13

8.75

Shiv Priya

26.43

24.65

Ajay Kumar

5.76

-

Suvash Chandra Kumar

5.11

-

Amresh Kumar

0.68

-

Total

 

67.13 33.40

b) Advances recoverable A sum of Rs.152.24 crores is recoverable from the Directors on account of their taxes paid, advance given for purchase of Shares and Other Advances given including their family members. The companies gave advances which were neither adjusted nor squared off against any future purchases or services under taken by the companies from the said parties nor were received back by the companies Stunning Construction Private Limited had made payments of Direct Taxes which were neither received back by the Company nor adjusted against any services. In other words the said advances are still standing to the debit (recoverable from these parties) in the books of the Company. This includes a sum of INR 17.43 Crores paid on behalf of directors, senior employees and their family members. Please refer executive summary on Page 39 of Volume 1 of Final Report.

Summarized as below:

S.no.

Name of the company

Amount (In Crores)

Anil Kumar Sharma and family

Shiv Priya and family

Ajay Kumar and family

Others

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited (Page No. 202-219)

0.50

0.02

0.39

0.09

-

2

Stunning Construction Private Limited (Page No. 196-201)

17.43

6.4

5.57

1.7

3.76

3

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited (Page No.- 229-244)

 

0.02

 

 

0.02

4

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited (Page No. 255-266)

0.28

0.05

0.23

-

-

5

AHS Joint Venture (Page No.- 273- 278)

9.58

6.18

3.12

0.28

-

6

Amrapali Infrastructure Private Limited (Page No. 286-306)

113.54

73.25

35.15

5.14

-

7

Sangam Colonizers Private Limited (Page No.189-192)

0.03

-

-

-

0.03

8

Amrapali Hospitality Services Private Limited (Page No. 346-350)

6.62

6.55

-

-

0.07

9

Hi Tech City Developers Private Limited (Page No. 279-285)

4.24

4.24

-

-

-

 

Total

152.24

96.69

44.46

7.21

3.88

Recoverable from other KMPs is as under:

Name of the Party

Amount as on 31stMarch, 2018

ChanderWadhwa and Family

2.55

Mohit Gupta and Family

0.16

SuvashChander Kumar

0.67

Amresh Kumar

0.17

NishantMukul

0.12

Adhikari Devi Prasad and Family

0.02

Anil Mittal and Company (Statutory Auditor)

0.19

Total

3.88

Cash in Hand

Cash in hand of various Companies is not physically available nor deposited in the banks and siphoned by the Directors amounting to Rs.69.36 crores should be recovered from the Directors as per details given below:

S. no.

Name of the Company

Amount (In Crores)

1

Stunning Construction Private Limited

0.17

2

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

0.11

3

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

0.23

4

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited

10.79

5

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

3.58

6

Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited

8.02177

7

Hi-tech City Developers Private Limited

0.46

8

Amrapali Infrastructure Private Limited

3.16

9

Sangam Colonizers Private Limited

0.15

10

Navodaya Properties Private Limited

0.24

11

Hawthorne Intellect Management Solutions Private Limited

0.01

12

MSB Software Technology Private Limited

0.70

14

GaurisutaInfrasolution Private Limited

0.01

17

Amrapali Hospitality Services Private Limited

0.01

18

KapilaBuildhome Private Limited

0.03

19

MannatBuildcraft Private Limited

0.20

20

Ultra Home Construction Private Limited

0.22

21

AmrapaliCenturian Park Private Limited

7.45

22

Amrapali Eden Park Developers Private Limited

2.00

23

Amrapali Grand

0.50

24

Amrapali Homes

0.19

25

Amrapali Homes Projects Private Limited

0.23

26

Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited

9.79

27

Amrapali Media Vision Private Limited

9.67

28

Amrapali Princely Estate Private Limited

5.02

29

Amrapali Smart City Private Limited

0.50

30

Amrapali Zodiac Developers Private Limited

3.84

31

Gaurisuta Infrastructure Private Limited

0.02

32

MVG Techno Consultants Private Limited

0.13

33

Noida Texfab Private Limited

0.13

34

La Residentia Developers Private Limited

0.30

35

Amrapali Biotech India Private Limited

1.50

Total

69.36


a) Advance Recoverable from Non-Related Parties Amounts given as advances to third parties without any business transactions which have not been adjusted along with the amount received/paid for the Non-Genuine transactions amounts to Rs.256.22 178 crores + Rs.326.46 crores and should be recovered from the management of the Amrapali group of Companies. The Company has given advances to various parties. The said advances that were given by the Company were neither adjusted nor squared off against any future purchases or services. No details regarding Pan, Address and Nature of Advance has been given to us. The actual amount may be much higher.

S. no.

Name of the Company

Amount (In Crores)

Refer Page No.

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

73.06

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

2

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

19.67

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

3

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited

17.20

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

4

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

50.41

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

5

AHS Joint Venture

15.81

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

6

Hi-tech City Developers Private Limited

8.91

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

7

Amrapali Infrastructure Private Limited

40.24

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

8

Sangam Colonizers Private Limited

0.36

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

9

Amrapali Power and Cement Private Limited

0.91

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

10

Hawthorne Intellect Management Solutions Private Limited

0.17

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

11

Amrapali Aerocity Private Limited

0.01

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

12

Amrapali Buddha Developers Private Limited

0.47

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

13

Gaurisuta Infrasolution Private Limited

1.24

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

14

Amrapali Hospitality Services Private Limited

13.55

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

15

Kapila Buildhome Private Limited

0.41

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

16

Mums Mega Food Park Private Limited

1.29

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

17

Mannat Buildcraft Private Limited

0.99

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

18

Amrapali Patel Platinum

7.85

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

19

Stunning Constructions Private Limited

0.44

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c 179

20

Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited

3.23

Volume - I Page No.40- Point No.4c

21

Amrapali Grand

29.17

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

22

Amrapali Homes

21.41

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

23

La residential Developers Pvt. Ltd.

23.35

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

24

Amrapali Eden Park Developers Pvt. Ltd.

3.02

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

25

Gaurisuta Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

0.46

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

26

Jhamb Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd.

5.93

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

27

Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd.

87.68

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

28

Amrapali Homes Project Pvt. Ltd.

55.01

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

29

Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd.

28.07

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

30

Amrapali Smart City Pvt. Ltd.

0.95

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

31

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd.

51.62

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

32

Amrapali Media Vision Pvt. Ltd.

4.96

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

33

Amrapali Health care Pvt. Ltd.

0.22

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

34

Stunning Construction Pvt. Ltd.

14.61

Annexure X.2 Final Report Volume - IV

Total

 

582.68

 

Advance Construction co Pvt ltd is/was a partner holding 9% in Amrapali Patel Platinum and 66% in AHS Joint Venture Project with Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd. They overdrew 7.10 crore and 14.81 crore from the respective joint venture totaling to 21.91 crore

While scrutinizing the documents sent by Advance Construction Company Private Limited, detail of capital contribution of the Advance Construction Company Private Limited as on 1st April, 2008 and thereafter is as under (as per tally data and confirmed by Advance Construction Company Private Limited):

Particulars

As on 31st March 2007

As on 31st March 2008

As on 31st March 2009

As on 31st March 2010

Capital Account

3,00,00,000

50,00,000

(6,10,00,000)

(7,10,00,000)

Note: The negative figures represent debit/ recoverable balance. The aforesaid amount of Rs.7.10 crores should be recovered from the said party along with interest of Rs.7.24 Crores (computed at 12% p.a. simple interest) in view of the undermentioned observations:

  • The clause 12 of MOU dated 11th November, 2006 clearly states that the profit would be divided amongst the partners in the profit-sharing ratio.
  • The Audited Financial Statements of the firm for the financial year 2013-14 reflect the firms Reserve and Surplus as Rs.35,433 only.
  • No other clause in the MOU states regarding payment of Interest on Capital.
  • It is not understood that how the said Company has withdrawn Rs.10.10 Crores on an investment of Rs.3 Crores invested for only a period of 1.5 years from this partnership firm. No satisfactory explanation has been given to us by the Management.

Even the ledger account sent by the said Company confirms that they owe Rs.7.10 Crores to this firm as on 31st March, 2018 after which an entry has been passed in the books of accounts.

As per supplementary partnership cum deed of retirement dated 31st Day of March, 2014, 2 partners namely M/s Patel Engineering Limited and M/s Advance Construction Company Private Limited have retired from the partnership and M/s Amrapali Infrastructure Private Limited has joined as a partner with M/s Ultra Home Construction Private Limited. However, the amount of Rs.7.10 Crores was not adjusted and was shown as payable to Amrapali Patel Platinum by Advance Construction Company Private Limited since 2014 till 2018. Further, The Audited Financial Statements of Amrapali Infrastructure Private Limited for the financial year 2013-14 and thereafter don't reflect any investment in Amrapali Patel Platinum. All the aforesaid facts clearly depict that the aforesaid supplementary partnership cum deed of retirement, ledger of Amrapali Patel Platinum in the books of Advance Construction Company Private Limited are contradictory and fabricated.

While scrutinizing the Audited financial statements/Tally data detail of capital contribution of the Advance Construction as on 1st April, 2008 and thereafter is as under:

(Amount in Crores)

Particulars

As on 31st March, 2008

As on 31st March , 2009

As on 31st March , 2010

As on 31st March , 2011

As on 31st March , 2012

As on 31st March , 2013

As on 31st March , 2014

As on 31st March , 2015

Capital Account

4.22

4.25

4.26

4.32

4.35

4.35

4.30

4.30

Current Account

(12.56)

(14.82)

(14.82)

(14.82)

(14.82)

(14.82)

(14.82)

(14.82)

Note: The negative figures represent debit/ recoverable balance.

The aforesaid amount of Rs.10.52 crores should be recovered from the said party along with interest of Rs.17.78 croresupto 31st March 2018 (computed at 12% p.a. simple interest) in view of the undermentioned observations: a. It is not understood that how the said Company has withdrawn Rs.14.82 crores on an investment of Rs.4.30 crores. No satisfactory explanation has been given to us by the Management. b. As informed to us by Advance Construction vide their mail dated 6th March, 2019, the Company had effectively retired from the said partnership and all the project related responsibilities were handed over to Mr. Sharma, (of Ultra Home) and the same was evidenced by an MOU dated 17th January, 2006. This explanation given by Advance Construction is not satisfactory since the Company is continuing as a partner and the subsequent Audited Financial Statements have also been signed by Advance Construction as a Partner sharing profit/ loss. This shows that MOU as referred by Advance Construction is bogus/ legally not enforceable.

c. Further, Partnership firm has been legally dissolved as per dissolution deed dated 2nd Day of April, 2018. This shows that Advance Construction is continuing as a partner in this firm till this date. It has also been mentioned in the dissolution deed that the accounts of the firm have been made upto 31st March, 2014 to the mutual satisfaction of all the parties here to. Even this dissolution deed is dated 2nd April, 2018 doesn't seem to be genuine in view of the following observations:

i. It refers to the Audited Financial Statements for the financial year 2013-14, whereas the Audited Financial Statements are available upto financial year 2014-15.

ii. The deed of dissolution has not been notarized.

iii. The Witnesses to this Dissolution Deed are incomplete in so far, name and address of witness number 1 is not there and signature of witness number 2 is not there.

iv. There is no copy of the resolution available authorizing Mr. Shiv Priya to sign the deed of dissolution. The Company has made cash payments to various parties exceeding INR 20,000 in contravention to The Income Tax Act 1961, to the tune of INR 45,768,482 in just one company namely Amrapali Sapphire Developers Pvt Ltd. This is just tip of the iceberg and actual amount may be much much higher. Most of these payments are not supported by evidence. It was further observed that neither the Statutory auditor has mentioned these cash payments exceedingRs.20,000 in his report and nor any addition has been made by the Income Tax department in framing the Assessments for the Assessment year 2014-15 vide order dated 31.03.2016.

Financial Year

Name of Party

Expense Debited

Amount

2012-13

Staff

Incentive

2,252,720

2014-15

Unity Contractor

Labour charges of Contractor

1,600,000

2014-15

ShailenderaDhwaj (T Z- 803)

-

1,399,500

2013-14

MV Ayer (TL-506)

-

1,000,000

 

Other Petty Amounts between 20,000 to 10 Lakhs

 

39,516,262

Total

45,768,482

6. Diversion of home buyer's funds Further as per financial statements and the books of accounts scrutinized by us up to 31st March 2015, a sum of Rs.1,588.59 Crores has been diverted to other projects, other group companies, directors and their relatives and senior employees. As per summary given below:

S.no.

Name of the company

Amount (In Crores)

Refer Page No.

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

113.98

Volume - I Page No.210- Point No. 7

2

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

134.25

Volume - I Page No.224- Point No. 7

3

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited

532.76

Volume - I Page No.233- Point No. 7

4

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

347.36

Volume - I Page No.259- Point No. 7 & 8

5

Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited

457.82

Volume - I Page No.251- Point No. 7

6

Hi Tech Developers Private Limited

2.42

Volume - II Page No.281- Point No. 2

Total

1,588.59

 

7. Non genuine purchases from suppliers

The total amount of non-genuine/ bogus purchases amounting to Rs.842.42 crores approximately. Details are as follows:

Non genuine purchases from Suppliers (Refer Page No. 2800 Supplementary Report & Annexure No. S-4): Rs. 837.12 crore

Add: Land development charges booked without supporting documents: Rs. 7.30 crore

Total Rs. 842.42 crore

8. Recovery from Others A sum of Rs.32.69 croresis recoverable from others as per details given below:

Sr. No.

Name of the Company

Amount in crores

Refer Page No.

1

Advance Constructions Private Limited

25.02

Volume - I Page No.43

2

ATN Infratech Private Limited

0.70

Volume - I Page No.43

3

AlokRanjan

0.25

Volume - I Page No.43

4

RinkuComputech

1.19

Volume - I Page No.43

5

Casita Propmart Private Limited

0.08

Volume - I Page No.43

6

Digital India (Controlled by Anil Mittal)

0.86

Volume - I Page No.43

7

AadhunikBuildtech Private Limited

0.12

Volume - I Page No.43

8

Kapila Building Solutions Private Limited

0.05

Volume - I Page No.43

9

Ozone GSP Infratech

0.42

Volume - I Page No.43

10

Royalgolf Link City Project Private Limited

4.00

Volume - I Page No.43

Total

 

32.69

 

9. Unexplained cash deposits/jewellery Details are as under:

Name of person

Amount/ value (in crore)

Refer Page No.

Anil Kumar Sharma (Cash)

5.73

Volume II - page no 419, Point no 7

1.50

Volume II - page no 420, Point no 12

Raj Dulari (mother of Anil Kumar Sharma) (Cash)

0.13

Volume II - page no 420, Point no 9

Shiv Priya (cash)

6.00

Volume II - page no 422, Point no 6

1.00

Volume II - page no 422, Point no 11

Shiv Priya (Jewellery)

0.58

Volume II - page no 422, Point no 11

Total

14.94

 

10. Balance due to Noida Authority and Greater Noida Authority as per affidavits submitted by them before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

The Group paid only 1st installment to Noida and Greater Noida authorities and did not pay in almost all the cases the installment due, lease rent and interest under one pretext or another. The Group has not made any provision for additional interest due to delay in payments of installments. We had issued a letter dated 30th January, 2019 to Noida Authority to send us the complete information/ documents regarding the amounts due from Amrapali Group of Companies. But we have not received any such details from the Noida Authority.

In these circumstances balance due to Noida Authority Couldn't be verified by us. It was further informed to us by the management of Amrapali that Noida and Greater Noida authorities have submitted three claims before the Honourable Supreme court. We were produced one of the annexure of the affidavit and the same is reproduced below.

We found that Noida/Greater Noida authority administration was non active for reasons best known to them. Amrapali group never paid the 2nd installment but Noida and Greater Noida authorities continued to allot large size land to them without fail. They never bothered to issue even a notice to be pasted at site for the information of home buyers that the land dues had not been paid so that home buyers could be cautious and on alert. In spite of non receipt of any installment, lease rent, interest they were very trumped in giving no objection certificate for the borrowings to Amrapali group from different sources like JP Morgan, ICICI and Aditya Birla Pvt equity funds and/or various banks.

a) Noida Authority

S. no.

Name of the Company

Amount (In Crores)

1

Amrapali Sapphire Developers Private Limited

348.8

2

Eden park Developers Private Limited

31.7

3

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

537.9

4

Amrapali Princely Estate Private Limited

149.6

5

Amrapali Patel Platinum

115.5

6

Amrapali Zodiac Developers Private Limited

276.1

 

Total

1,459.6

b) Greater Noida Authority

S.no.

Name

Amount (In Crores)

1

Amrapali Smart City Developers Pvt Ltd

628.06

2

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt Ltd

255.37

3

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt Ltd

914.33

4

AmrapaliCenturian Park Pvt Ltd

569.36

5

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt Ltd

718.28

Total

3,085.4

Grand Total (a+b)

4,545

11. Balance payable against Term Loans

Name of the Company

Name of the bank

Date of Confirmation

Total (In Crores)

Ultra Home Constructions Private Limited

Indian Overseas Bank

31-12-2018

16.15

Corporation Bank

5/2/2019

91.49

Amrapali Smart City Developers Private Limited

Corporation Bank

5/2/2019

143.74

Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited

Andhra Bank

5/2/2019

98.04

Bank of Maharashtra A/c

5/2/2019

179.02

Andhra Bank

5/2/2019

13.56

Bank of Maharashtra

5/2/2019

22.24

Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited

Bank of Maharashtra

5/2/2019

95.34

Total

659.58

Note: Information in respect of bank loans has been given to the extent of availability of documents."

61(a). The aforesaid is the summary of report of the Forensic Audit which states that the Group collaborated with external parties like J.P. Morgan in contravention of FEMA and distributed returns along with the principal amount, even though it did not book gains within the business of the 186 company.

(b). The report also reveals various disturbing features that no accounts were prepared from 2015 to 2018 and money was withdrawn out of it and diverted from one company to another. The entire transactions were not being entered into Tally. The opening balances were not entered properly. In April 2015, the Amrapali Group introduced Far Vision an ERP, which was also not implemented properly.

(c). There was no information about purchases from the supplier. During a search in 2013, it was held by Income Tax Authorities that purchases are being made from bogus suppliers without receiving the goods physically. Bogus expenses and cash has been surrendered by Amrapali Group in the income tax search. (d). The amount shown as developmental charges is not supported by evidence or vouchers. The total bogus expense has been ascertained to Rs.842.42 crores. An amount of Rs.0.25 crore was paid to Mr. Alok Ranjan towards brokerage.

(e). The company has also made unusual cash payments in the financial year 2016-2017 by transferring cash to the Site, but the same is not supported/authenticated by the Site Cash In-charge. Certain payments have not been found to be genuine.

(f). The Group Companies purchased gold bar worth Rs.5.88 crore, which is a personal expense and it should be recovered from the management of 187 the company.

(g). The amount disbursed by Banks was not utilised for constructions of projects and the funds of homebuyers as well as the amount disbursed from the Banks were diverted to unapproved uses, namely, creation of personal assets of Directors; creation of assets in closely held companies by Directors along with their partners and relatives; funds were used for personal expenses of Directors; funds were advanced to unrelated entities for several years without levying interest on unrealized amount, the recoverable amount from third parties has amounted to Rs.326 crores; creation of discreet projects for personal income; and construction of assets for other projects.

(h). There were negligence and non-monitoring by Bankers. There was a transfer of funds from one company to another company to a third company and so on and so forth on the same dates would not have been possible without the active support of the Bankers. They turned blind eye to all the transfers and did not inquire, which were being routed every day. If they had been alive to the situation, the Management would not have dared to launder the money from one company to another according to their whims and fancies and the Bankers are solely responsible for the negligence on their part. The Bankers did not do any monitoring. The Bank of Maharashtra and Andhra Bank also failed to do the monitoring. Even the basic checks were foregone. The Banks acted as a mute spectator to unapproved diversion which was happening evidently in all banking transactions. Even, Noida and Greater Noida Authorities were grossly negligent in reviewing and monitoring the progress of projects and did not take any action for non-payment of land dues and continued to allot land to Amrapali Group for the reasons best known to them.

(i). The Directors along with trust partners discreetly divided the projects into two parts:

(i) Projects in which home buyers funds were received and funds were diverted from these projects;

(ii) Projects to which home funds were diverted. These projects were subsequently separated/demerged from Amrapali Group, e.g., Heartbeat City, La Residentia, Vinayaka Square.

(j). Several dummy companies were formed in the names of office boys and peons. Technically, the allotments at the initial stage were void abinitio. The amount received by the Companies from home-buyers was more than the amount spent on construction and for payment of the land. The sole objective of taking a loan was to divert the funds to other ventures to create assets in the name of family members and to make movies. Villas were bought at tourist destination for fun at the expenses of the middle class and low-income group people.

(k). Several companies were created solely for the purpose of routing funds. These companies did not have any material transaction as per the main object for which they were incorporated and did not have a business 189 since their incorporation.

62. As is apparent from the report, several companies were created only to route the funds and transactions consisting of office boys, persons with no income and dummy companies in which family members and relatives were inducted as members only for few transactions, which are as under:

(1) Jhamb Finance & Leasing Private Limited. It was under the control of Mr. Chander Wadhwa, CFO. It has advanced loans amounting to Rs.875 crores to related and unrelated entities, which are recoverable.

(2) Gaurisuta Infrastructure Private Limited It was also created for diverted funds.

(3) Neelkanth Buildcraft Private Limited Similarly it was formed for the purpose of buying shares from J.P. Morgan at exorbitant rates, consisiting of office boys and relatives of Mr. Anil Mittal, Statutory Auditor.

(4) Stunning Construction Private Limited As per findings of the Forensic Auditors, they should either surrender 19.75 percent of land or 632 flats.

(5) Kapila Buildhome Private Limited It financed a sum of Rs.392.68 crores. It accepted non-interest bearing inter-corporate deposits from non-group companies, which was 190 used for money laundering.

(6) Rudraksha Infracity Private Limited It was consisting of office boys and relative of Anil Mittal, Statutory Auditor, which was created to receive money from Mannat Buildcraft Private Limited and to transfer it to J.P. Morgan Investments by purchasing it at exorbitant rates and for no other transaction.

(7) Mannat Buidcraft Private Limited It was created for money laundering of Rs.120 crores, only for few transactions.

(8) Amrapali Magadh Developers Private Limited It did not carry out any principal business activity. The purpose of its creation is not clear. The shareholders paid the share application money in cash.

(9) Amrapali Mahi Developers Private Limited It received share capital in cash and all the expenses were paid in cash.

(10) Amrapali Spring Valley Private Limited It was created for the purpose of routing and diversion of funds amounting to Rs.186 crores has been found.

(11) Amrapali Media Vision Private Limited It was created making movies. There was no necessity of creation of 191 this company for advertising. It was created to divert funds to make movies. Rhiti Management Private Limited was paid Rs.24 crores for professional charges and advertisement expenses etc.

(12) Hawthrone Intellect Management Solutions Private Limited It had paid up capital of Rs.1 lakh and incurred losses of Rs.2.33 crores. The expenses are inflated to wipe off the various loans and advances received from sister concerns. The entries have found to be dubious and the amount of loss of Rs.2.33 crores to be recovered from the Directors as it was wiping off the amount of the homebuyers.

(13) Amrapali Smart City Private Limited It is stated in the report that plot allotted to Amrapali Smart City Private Limited was cancelled, therefore, money receivable from Greater Noida is Rs.18.35 crores.

(14) Amrapali Biotech India Private Limited It was created for routing funds. The ICD's are either from the group companies or received from outside the group companies through adjustment entries.

(15) Amrapali Healthcare Private Limited It formed the property by funds of Ultra Home Construction Private Limited created from home buyers' funds. It deserves to be sold.

(16) Amrapali Centurian Park Private Limited The Forensic Auditors have found bogus booking of expenditure and certain adjustments against bogus billings of River Sand for an amount of Rs.3.60 crores.

(17) Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited Mr. Akhil Kumar Surekha became the Director and thereafter most diversions of funds took place through the current account. The funds of the company were transferred to and fro with companies in which Surekha family had control. FSI was sold without taking approval from Great Noida Authority. The money received from Bihari High Rise Private Limited was diverted to Jotindra Steel & Tubes Limited and Ozone GSP Infratech by routing it through Ultra Home Construction Private Limited. Bihariji High Rise Private Limited, Jotindra Steel & Tubes Limited and Mauria Udyog Limited are owned by Surekha family. There was bogus booking of expenditure since March 2018 also of Rs.2.86 crores and other bogus entries of huge amounts.

(18) Amrapali Homes It has been found that Mauria Udyog Limited has to pay Rs.20 crores and the same be recovered.

(19) La Residentia Developers Private Limited The consortium of five members was created, which was controlled by Amrapali Group. The shareholders and directors were just acting faces for 193 outsiders. There was diversion of funds since beginning of the project itself. The company purchased raw material from Amrapali Infrastructure Private Limited amounting to Rs.67.45 lakhs, but not even a single penny was paid since then. The loan amount of Rs. 49 crores were taken. On the other hand, there was withdrawal by Directors and advances given to the related parties and entities. Amrapali Group transferred some of their buyers to La Residentia Developers Private Limited and the payment for the same was received by Amrapali Group. They were reflected as customers in the customer data of Amrapali Group. The company is using the brand name/trademark of Amrapali Group on its letterheads.

(20) Amrapali Homes Projects Limited Mr. Prem Mishra was given Rs.12.40 crores for purchase of land since 1st April 2008, out of which Rs.10 crores are still receivable from him. Rs.55.87 crores are recoverable amounts and out of which Rs.20.75 crores pertain to advances against land which has not been charged to cost of construction.

(21) Ultra Home Construction Private Limited The flats were allotted on false promises, forged documents and certain allotted flats did not exist in the approved building plan. Shareholders used the money of home buyers for allotment of shares in the company. The records of certain lands purchased by the company disappeared, the details of which have been given. The company has advances recoverable amounting to Rs.111 crores.

(22) Amrapali Grand Bihariji Ispat Udyog Limited always had negative capital. Loans and advances amounting to Rs.25.73 crores have been diverted. The other diversions have also been noticed in the report.

(23) Amrapali Eden Park Developers Private Limited There is no substance in the nature of transactions of the company. It was for routing funds form one entity to another to hidden objective. Banks loans were diverted as advances to third parties. The funds were diverted for purposes other than development.

63. Several companies were created for building assets. There was no compliance of the statutory obligations by the companies. The annual returns and audited financial statements have not been filed after 31.3.2015. The Registrar of Companies has disqualified the Directors, namely, Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Mr. Amresh Kumar, Mr. Shiv Priya, Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Suvash Chandra Kumar for a period of 5 years under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Company has not been regular in payment of TDS and service tax and has also not filed relevant returns after 31.3.2015. Mr. Anil Mittal, CA (Statutory Auditor) and Mr. Chander Wadhwa, CFO were in connivance with each other.

Mr. Anil Mittal, CA blindly signed the accounts and along with Mr. Chander Wadhwa, CFO is grossly involved in making manipulation in the accounts. He has received payment on account of professional charges in the name of companies in which his relatives were Directors and this fact has not been 195 disclosed in the audited financial statement. A sum of Rs.52.07 crore was adjusted on account of professional fees due and to be paid on account of audit fees. Further, a sum of Rs.16.36 crore was adjusted against a flat in Amrapali Princely Estate on account of audit fees. They incorporated 27 additional companies identified. They were shell companies, whose share capital was mostly subscribed in cash and the transfer of shares was also in cash leaving no audit trail.

The home-buyers funds to the extent of Rs.5,619.47 crores have been diverted. There was diversion of funds to various suppliers, fake purchases and advances without any adjustment. Siphoning off funds had also taken place by way of booking under-valued transactions in respect of the sale of flats. The Forensic Auditors have also traces of receiving cash from home-buyers, which is not accounted for in the books of accounts. The home-buyers funds were diverted to the tune of Rs.5,619.47 crores to the other companies through

(i) payment of professional fee to Directors for Rs.100.53 crores;

(ii) bogus billing for Rs.842.42 crores;

(iii) under-valuing of flats to the tune of Rs.321.21 crores;

(iv) brokerage was paid against flats which were not sold by the company; and

(v) inter-corporate deposits were given to related entities.

64. In J.P. Morgan, had also been found to routing money and in violation of FEMA by the Forensic Auditors. As pointed out, the equity shares were purchased at an exorbitant price to suit the requirements of J.P. Morgan. Sudit K. Parikh & Co., Chartered Accountants and the Auditors made the valuation on the basis of information provided by J.P. 196 Morgan Investments. Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd. has diverted home buyers fund and there was no need for any investment from J.P. Morgan. It was in the knowledge of Mr. Suraj Chhabria and also in the knowledge of J.P. Morgan that money had been diverted. 65. Rule 4 of FEMA Rules has been referred by the Forensic Auditors pointing out that External Commerical Borrowings (ECB) can be accessed under two routes namely Automatic Route and Approval Route. Under Automatic Route, the ECB is not permitted to be utilized for real estate sector, whereas under Approval Route the ECB are not permitted to be utilized for real estate. Rs.60 crores were remitted to Amrapali Leisure Vally Developers Pvt. Ltd. by J.P. Morgan without obtaining approval from the competent authority so as to make investment in the form of ECB. It is necessary to comply with the following :

(a) obtaining Loan Registration Number from R.B.I.;

(b) file ECB-2 returns every month to the R.B.I.;

(c) withhold tax on interest payment to J.P. Morgan under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. As per Article 11 of the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement between India and Mauritius, the tax shall be charged @ 7.5 percent of the gross amount of interest;

(d) J.P. Morgan would have to file its income tax return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act in India due to withholding tax on its interest income borrower. 197 66. The Forensic Auditors have also reported duplicate allotment of flats. They have provided the details of flats. Flats were alloted (residential and commercial) to the brokers and suppliers of which list has been given. Utilities like Milk Booth, nursery schools, senior secondary schools, nursing homes alloted to various parties should be cancelled.

67. With respect to Sureka Group, it is pointed out in the Forensic Audit Report that they have been a partner in various projects and were authorised cheque signatories in various companies. It is observed that Rs.13.44 crores were paid to Surekha Public Charitable Trust, which is a group institution of Jotindra Steel and Tubes Limited, which amount should be recovered from Jotindra Steel & Tubes Limited. An amount of Rs.9,506,120 should also be recovered from Surekha Group. Funds were routed through Synergy Freightways Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Atul Kumar was alloted a flat which was not by way of adjustment. The amount should be recovered or his flat may be attached.

68. With respect to R.N. Traders, an amount of Rs.2,714.02 lakhs have been withdrawn by the management for the purpose of their own use and should be recovered from the management. There is a billing of Rs.5.28 crores for the financial year 2015-16 in the name of Mauria Udyog Limited. Forfeiture of the investments has also been suggested in the group companies named by the Forensic Auditors. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

69. In the instant matter, the question of larger public importance is involved. It is a shocking and surprising state of affairs that such largescale cheating has taken place and middle and poor class home buyers have been duped and deprived of their hard-earned money and lifetime savings and some of them had taken a loan from the bank and they are not getting houses. Bank has made payment to the builder, owners have the liability of making payment of amount with interest, home buyers are still waiting for their dream houses to be completed. This is not only with respect to the Amrapali builders that projects have not been completed as reflected in the affidavits of Noida and Greater Noida Authorities.

More than 70% of the projects have not been completed which were initiated way-back in the year 2008-09 and were supposed to be completed within 3 years. By the Amrapali Group, the buyers' money which has been obtained has not been invested in the construction activities, rather it has been diverted to a great extent. Money obtained from the banks has also not been invested in the projects and has been diverted elsewhere to acquire other assets.

70. There are huge liabilities of Noida and Greater Noida Authorities and though builders were asked way back on 17.11.2017 to deposit 10% of the amount with the Noida and Greater Noida authorities, that order was repeated again on 18.1.2018 but still that has not been complied with. Thereafter on the basis of joint note, this Court directed Amrapali group of 199 companies to complete the projects but the order was not complied with. Various wrong representations were made in this Court. Developers backed out and an application was filed to waive the condition of deposit of Rs.250 crores to start work by the Amrapali group that shows that its action was mala fide and it never intended to complete various projects as rightly found by the forensic auditors and that their intention was to divert the funds and this they had done at a large scale as is borne out from their report.

71. The question involved in the case is whether the builders and promoters can be permitted to usurp and divert the money of home buyers and home buyers can be left in the lurch as a silent spectator. As per the Noida and Greater Noida authorities, in case the lease-deed is snapped, the entire constructed buildings shall have to be demolished within 3 months. As per the bankers, they have a charge on the property as the land has been mortgaged to them and until and unless their amount is paid, the builder will have no right on the property which has been constructed by their money, and the buyers have also to wait for the satisfaction of the dues.

72. In our opinion, if the real estate business has to survive in India, it has to be answerable to the public and has necessarily to uphold the trust reposed in builders/promoters. They have been paid huge amounts not only by the home buyers but also, they have to pay a huge amount for the public land given to them on lease by Noida and Greater Noida Authorities 200 for construction of houses. The land has been given to them by the authorities on a concessional basis by making payment of 10% amount at the time of allotment. The builders have to be accountable to public/home buyers as well as the authorities and bankers. It is a matter relating to housing needs dealing with shelter place, such an activity is of the public importance as the real estate sector plays a pivotal role in the fulfilment of needs of housing infrastructure.

IN RE: PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

73. The public trust doctrine imposes on the State and its functionaries a mandate to take affirmative action for effective management, and the citizens are empowered to question its ineffectiveness. The land of the farmers had been acquired for the purpose of housing and infrastructure needs by the State Government and handed over to the concerned authorities for construction. They are bound to ensure that builders act in accordance with the objective behind the acquisition of land and the conditions on which allotment had been made. It was a duty of concerned officials; they are not only enjoined to ensure that the rights of the home buyers are protected but also the interests of the authorities; and bankers. The public authorities are duty-bound to observe that the leased property is not frittered away along with the money of the home buyers. Affirmative action was clearly enjoined upon them not only under the statutory provisions of various enactments but also under the public trust doctrine 201 that has evolved over the years by this Court. In Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 508, this Court has observed:

"38. The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse, etc. acts as a trustee and, therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee. *** *** ***

40. The Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The doctrine has grown from Article 21 of the Constitution. In essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it would only be a case of colorable exercise of power. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic society. (Vide Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., AIR 1975 SC 266, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn., AIR 1988 SC 157, Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., AIR 1991 SC 537; and M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, AIR 1999 SC 2468).

*** *** ***

41. Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact-situation of a case. "Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them". A decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An Authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred.

In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other. (Vide Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16, Sirsi Municipality v. Ceceila Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855, State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319, Collector (District Magistrate) v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622, Delhi Admn. v. Manohar Lal, (2002) 7 SCC 222 and N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 867)."

74. In Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1, the Court observed:

"172. The judgment in LDA v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243, brings out the foundational principle of executive governance. The said foundational principle is based on the realization that sovereignty vests in the people. The judgment, therefore, records that every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. The fundamental principle brought out by the judgment is, that a public authority exercising public power discharges a public duty, and 202 therefore, has to sub-serve general welfare and common good.

All power should be exercised for the sake of society. The issue which was the subject matter of consideration, and has been noticed along with the citation, was decided by concluding that compensation shall be payable by the State (or its instrumentality) where inappropriate deprivation on account of improper exercise of discretion has resulted in a loss, compensation is payable by the State (or its instrumentality). But where the public functionary exercises his discretion capriciously, or for considerations which are malafide, the public functionary himself must shoulder the burden of compensation held as payable. The reason for shifting the onus to the public functionary deserves notice. This Court felt, that when a court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State, the ultimate sufferer is the common man because it is tax-payers money out of which damages and costs are paid."

75. In Association of Unified Tele Services Providers & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 110, the Court observed:

"4. We have indicated, the worth of spectrum to impress upon the fact that the State actions and actions of its agencies/ instrumentalities/ licensees must be for the public good to achieve the object for which it exists, the object being to serve public good by resorting to fair and reasonable methods. State is also bound to protect the resources for the enjoyment of general public rather than permit their use for purely commercial purposes. Public trust doctrine, it is well established, puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest. Further, it mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management."

76. In the instant case, it is apparent that there are colossal dues of Noida and Greater Noida Authorities. The dues of Noida Authorities as on 30.4.2019 are Rs.2191.38 crores and dues of Greater Noida authority are stated to be Rs.3234.71 crores as on 15.1.2019. Thus, the total dues of Noida and Greater Noida authorities are more than Rs.5426.09 crores; by now more than Rs.5500 crores. Payments were made to Noida authorities in 2010 and some amount in 2013; in-between or thereafter, except one or two payments no other amount has been paid. There were several defaults in making the payment of the premium amount, lease money, even the 203 money payable to the farmers as compensation for land acquisition has not been paid by the builders, as is apparent from the account statement filed on behalf of the Noida authority. Though the builder has realised from home buyers the amount payable to authorities of Noida and Greater Noida as a component of the price payable by them.

77. Once the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities knew very well that there were defaults, they could not have allotted further land to the Amrapali group without insisting for payment of its dues. Secondly, it was not open to the authorities to permit the sub-leases of plot of land executed by builders, thereby allowing the leaseholder to earn a huge amount without making payment of the amount due to them. The officials of the authorities have acted in clear breach of public trust. They have permitted the defaulting leaseholders to earn the amount by sub-leasing its land of which dues had not been cleared.

Thus, apparently, the officials of the authorities acted clearly in collusion with the builders and overlooked the interest of the Authorities and home buyers while permitting the sub-leases of plot of land to be granted. It passes comprehension how the officials of the authorities could have permitted such sub-leases in the factual scenario of the case when even the basic obligation to raise the construction was not being fulfilled by the builders and they were not paying the dues of premium, lease money etc. The action of the officials of the authorities has the effect of causing unjust enrichment of builder from 204 the land held by the concerned authorities. It was wholly an illegal exercise permitted.

78. We are of the considered opinion that the officials of the Noida and Greater Noida authorities have acted clearly in a breach of public trust and apart from that, they have failed to act as per the statutory mandate, the regulations and the terms of the lease deed. The transfer of the plot by the lessee was only on fulfilment of certain conditions. The dues of lessor towards the cost of land were to be cleared in accordance with the schedule of payment. Following provision is contained in lease deed dated 3.8.2010 entered into between Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and M/s. Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt. Ltd. The relevant provision with respect to the transfer of the plot is extracted hereunder:

"TRANSFER OF PLOT.

Without obtaining the completion certificate the Lessee shall have the right to sub-divide the allotted plot into suitable smaller plots as per planning norms and to transfer the same to the interested parties up to 30.0.2010, or as decided by the Lessor, with the prior approval of LESSOR on payment of transfer charges @ 2% of allotment rate. However, the area of each of such sub-divided plots should not be less than 20,000 sq. mtrs. However, the individual flat/plot will be transferable with prior approval of the LESSOR as per the following conditions:-

(i) The dues of LESSOR towards the cost of the land shall be paid in accordance with the payment schedule specified in the Lease Deed before executing of sub-lease deed of the flat.

(ii) The lease deed has been executed.

(iii) Transfer of flat will be allowed only after obtaining completion certificate for the respective phase by the Lessee.

(iv) The sub-Lessee undertakes to put to use the premises for the residential use only.

(v) The Lessee has obtained building occupancy certificate from the Building Cell/Planning Department, GREATER NOIDA.

(vi) First sale/transfer of a flat/plot to an allottee shall be through a Sub-lease/Lease Deed to be executed on the request of the Lessee to the LESSOR in writing.

(vii) No transfer charges will be payable in case of the first sale, including the built-up premises on the sub-divided plot(s) as described 205 above. However, on a subsequent sale, transfer charges shall be applicable on the prevailing rates as fixed by the LESSOR.

(viii) Rs. 1000/- shall be paid as processing fee in each case of transfer of flat in addition to transfer charges."

(emphasis supplied)

79. In the lease deed, the schedule of payment was fixed. Two years was the period of the moratorium and thereafter payment was to be made on expiry of 23.10.2012, onwards up to 23.4.2020. In case of default in depositing the amount, the interest @ 15% compounded half yearly shall be leviable. With respect to the extension of time, it is provided that in exceptional circumstances, time to deposit for payment of balance due amount may be extended by the CEO for 15% interest compounded half yearly. The extension of time, in any case, cannot be allowed for more than 60 days for each instalment to be deposited, subject to a maximum of 3 such extensions during the entire payment schedule.

The provision relating to the extension of time is extracted hereunder:

"A. EXTENSION OF TIME

1. In exceptional circumstances, the time of deposit for the payment of balance due amount may be extended by the Chief Executive Officer of the Lessor.

2. However, in such cases of time extension, interest @ 15% per annum compounded half yearly shall be charged on the outstanding amount for such extended period.

3. Extension of time, in any case, shall not be allowed for more than 60 days for each instalment to be deposited, subject to maximum of three (3) such extensions during the entire payment schedule.

4. For the purpose of arriving at the due date, the date of issuance of allotment letter will be reckoned as the date of allotment."

80. The lease was granted for a term of 90 years. It is specifically provided in lease deed condition No.(ii)(c) that the lessee shall use the allotted plot for construction of group housing/flats/plots. Condition No.(ii)(c)(iii) deals 206 with the part transfer of the plot. It lays down normally the permission for part-transfer of the plot shall not be granted under any circumstances. The lessee shall not be entitled to complete the transaction for sale, transfer, assign or otherwise part with possession of the whole or any part of the building constructed thereon before making payment according to the schedule specified in the lease deed of the plot to the lessor. Relevant condition No.2(c)(iii) is extracted hereunder:

"(c) The Lessee shall use the allotted plot for construction of Group Housing/flats/plots. However, the Lessee shall be entitled to allot the dwelling units on a sub-lease basis to its allottee and also provide space for facilities like Roads, Parks, etc. as per their requirements, convenience with the allotted plot, fulfilling requirements or building bye-laws and prevailing and under mentioned terms and conditions to the Lessor. Further transfer/sublease shall be governed by the transfer policy of the Lessor.

i) Such allottee/sub Lessee should be a citizen of India and competent to contract.

ii) Husband/wife and their dependent children will not be separately eligible for the purpose of allotment and shall be treated as single entity.

iii) Normally, the permission for the part transfer of plot shall not be granted under any circumstances.

The Lessee shall not be entitled to complete transaction for sale, transfer, assign or otherwise part with possession of the whole or any part of the building constructed thereon before making payment according to the schedule specified in the lease deed of the plot to the Lessor. However, after making payment of premium of the plot to the Lessor as per schedule specified in the lease deed, permission for transfer of built-up flats or to part with possession of the whole or any part of the building constructed on the Group Housing Plot, shall be granted and subject to payment of transfer charges as per policy prevailing at the time of granting such permission of transfer. However, the Lessor reserves the right to reject any transfer application without assigning any reason. The Lessee will also be required to pay transfer charges as per the policy prevailing at the time of such permission of transfer. The permission to transfer the part of the built-up space will be granted subject to execution of tripartite sub-lease deed which shall be executed in a form and format as prescribed by the lessor. On the fulfilment of the following conditions: -

a) The lease deed of the plot has been executed and the Lessee has made the payment according to the schedule specified in the lease deed of the plot, interest and one-time lease rent. Permission of sub- 207 lease deed shall be granted phase wise on payment of full premium (with interest up to the date of deposit) of the plot of that phase.

b) Every sale done by the Lessee shall have to be registered before the physical possession of the property is handed over.

c) The Lessee has obtained building occupancy certificate from the Planning Department, Greater Noida. d) The Lessee shall submit list of individual allottees of flats within 6 months from the date of obtaining occupancy certificate.

e) The Lessee shall have to execute sublease in favour of the individual allottees for the developed flats/plots in the form and format as prescribed by the LESSOR.

f) The Sub-Lessee undertakes to put to use the premises for the residential use only."

(emphasis supplied)

81. In view of the aforesaid clause, by way of sub-lease of the plot, the transfer of plots could not have been made by the lessee. The lessee was required to start construction within 12 months from the date of possession. The date of execution of lease deed shall be treated as the date of possession. The lessee shall be required to complete the construction of minimum 15% of the total FAR of the allotted plot as per the approved layout plan and get occupancy/completion certificate within 3 years from the date of execution of the lease deed. Cancellation of lease deed is also provided in the case of violation of directions, or rules, regulations or in case of the default on the part of the lessee for breach or violation of terms and conditions of the registration/allotment/lease and/or non-deposit of allotment amount. In the case of cancellation, if the plot is occupied by the lessee, an amount equivalent to 25% of the total premium of the plot shall be forfeited and possession of the plot will be resumed by the lessor with structure thereon, if any, and the lessee will have no right to claim 208 compensation thereof. The provision relating in lease deed as to its cancellation is extracted hereunder:

"CANCELLATION OF LEASE DEED

In addition to the other specific clauses relating to cancellation, the Lessor, as the case may be, will be free to exercise its right of cancellation of the lease in the case of:-

1. Allotment being obtained through misrepresentation/suppression of material facts, misstatement and/or fraud.

2. Any violation of directions issued or rules and regulation framed by Lessor or by any other statutory body.

3. Default on the part of the Lessee for breach/violation of terms and conditions of registration/allotment/lease and/or non-deposit of allotment amount.

4. If at the same time of cancellation, the plot is occupied by the Lessee thereon, the amount equivalent to 25% of the total premium of the plot shall be forfeited and possession of the plot will be resumed by the Lessor with structure thereon, if any, and the Lessee will have no right to claim compensation thereof. The balance, if any, shall be refunded without any interest. The forfeited amount shall not exceed the deposited amount with the Lessor and no separate notice shall be given in this regard.

5. If the allotment is cancelled on the ground mention in sub-clause 1 above, then the entire amount deposited by the lessee till the date of cancellation shall be forfeited by the Lessor and no claim whatsoever shall be entertained in this regard."

82. As provided by clause 6, the lease deed/allotment shall be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and by the rules and/or regulations made or directions issued under the Act. Clause 7 requires the lessor to monitor the implementation of the project. The applicants who do not have a firm commitment to implement the project within the time limits prescribed are advised not to avail the allotment. In larger public interest the lessor under clause 13 is also given a right to take back possession of the land/building by making payment at the prevailing rate. Condition Nos.6, 7 and 13 are extracted hereunder:

"6. The Lease Deed/allotment will be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No.6 of 1976) 209 and by the rules and/or regulations made or directions issues, under this Act.

7. The Lessor will monitor the implementation of the project. Applicants who do not have a firm commitment to implement the project within the time limits prescribed are advised not to avail the allotment.

13. The Lessor in larger public interest may take back the possession of the land/building by making payment at the prevailing rate."

(emphasis supplied)

Thus, it is apparent that the officials of the concerned authorities have not discharged their duty in accordance with the trust enjoined upon them under aforesaid terms and conditions of lease deed, thus, by their inaction, enabled cheating of the home buyers at a large scale. They were well aware of what was happening on the spot.

IN RE: MORTGAGE

83. With respect to the creation of mortgage deed in favour of bankers etc., Noida Authority has submitted that every mortgage permission is granted by the Noida Authority to the individual company of Amrapali group wherein a provision is made that Noida Authority has first charge/priority over all other charges including those created in favour of banks and financial institutions. The conditions on which permission to mortgage had been granted are as under:

"This is to inform you that Noida shall have no objection for the purpose of financing his investment in the project on Group Housing Plot No.001, Sector 119, Noida in favour of Nationalised Banks/Financial Institutions/HUDCO, New Delhi or to issue NOC to mortgage the said land to facilitate the housing loans of the final loans of the final purchasers subject to such terms and conditions as may be decided by the Authority at the time of granting the permission. This permission is being granted subject to the condition that in the mortgage deed, following clauses will be included:-

(i) That the financial institution in whose favour mortgage permission is required should be recognised by the Reserve Bank of India/National Housing Bank/HUDCO New Delhi. Noida shall have the first charge towards the pending payment in respect of plot/flat allotted/lease rent/taxes or any other charges as informed or levied by the Authority on the plot and the banks/financial institutions/HUDCO New Delhi, shall have the second charge on the dwelling units thus being financed.

(ii) The mortgage permission shall be effective on making full payment of premium and up to date annual lease rent of group housing plot and after execution of sub-lease deed in favour of allottee of the dwelling unit and the allottee/sub-lessee shall be governed by the terms and conditions of allotment/lease deed of the plot to be executed and sub-lease deed to be executed in favour of the allottee sub-lessee. In the event of sale/transfer of flat, transfer charges at the rate prevailing at the time of transfer shall be payable to Noida.

(iii) Each allottee/sub-lessee of the dwelling units shall have to intimate Noida of the creation of the mortgage in favour of bank/financial institutions/employer and the bank/financial institution/employee of the allottee shall also keep Noida informed about the dwelling units thus financed.

(iv) It is further to inform you that in the case of cancellation of lease, Noida Authority will give 30 days' notice to nationalised Banks/financial institutions/HUDCO, New Delhi prior to exercising its right of re-entry on the premises."

(emphasis supplied)

84. The permissions to mortgage containing aforesaid clauses have been placed on record along with affidavit dated 22.11.2018. It is apparent from the second condition, subject to which permission to mortgage shall be effective on making full payment of the premium and up to date annual lease rent of group housing plot and after execution of the sub-lease deed in favour of the allottee of the dwelling unit, the allottee/sub-lessee shall be governed by the terms and conditions of allotment/lease deed of the plot to be executed and sub-lease deed to be executed in favour of the allottee/sub-lessee.

Since at no point of time, payment of premium due had been made and up to date annual lease rent had not been paid, no mortgage could have been created in favour of the bank in view of specific condition No.2 extracted above. Thus, when the conditional permission granted by the authority was furnished to the bank for obtaining the loan by promoters/builders, it was incumbent upon Bank officials to ascertain from the concerned authorities that the premium due under the leases has been paid and lease rent due up to date has also been paid. In order to create a mortgage, it was necessary to obtain clear NOC in order to create effective mortgage deed.

As that has not been done so far, no mortgage in the eye of law has been created in favour of the bank. It was not open to the bankers to mortgage the land in view of the conditional permission to create mortgage, the mortgage created in violation of condition cannot be said to be effective in accordance with law as the land was owned by the concerned authorities and the lessees had right to mortgage only subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed by the lessor/authorities. 85. On behalf of Noida and Greater Noida authorities, it was pointed out that they had taken steps reminding the lessees to pay dues by issuing notices w.e.f. 2007 to 2017. In our opinion, in spite of no payment made by lessees, failure to take action, makes their position further worse. As no effective action had been taken and officials have permitted wilfully contumacious violations of conditions of the lease. Right under their nose and to their knowledge serious kind of fraud had been taking place and officials have clearly connived with builders. In spite of construction activity lying stand still for years together dues not being paid. As a matter of fact, issuance of conditional NOC was with ulterior motive, there was no reason to issue such a conditional permission, subject to which mortgage could have been made.

They could not have issued any conditional permission for creation of a mortgage also without payment of amount due, permission has been issued obviously for being misused, in collusion with the officials of the bank and Authorities. It was incumbent upon the concerned authorities not to issue such an NOC for a mortgage and it was incumbent upon the bank officials in order to create a valid mortgage to ascertain from the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities that the condition imposed by them as condition precedent to create a mortgage had been fulfilled and to obtain clear NOC. But that is how in illegal manner the public money is obtained from banks for the purpose of construction activity and then it was not used for that purpose, as found in the forensic audit report in which it is rightly pointed out that there was a diversion of money.

The amount of loan advanced by banks was not used for the purpose it had been obtained for a particular project and it was diverted to other companies. It was happening not only under the nose of Noida and Greater Noida authorities, but was directly in the knowledge and connivance of the bankers as day-to-day transactions in the bank accounts were pointing out that the money was being siphoned and diverted for other purposes routinely, not being utilised for the purpose it was given. Thus, all of them have helped in perpetuating the fraud on the home buyers by Amrapali group of companies, its various Directors, officials and others who have been specified in minute details in the forensic audit reports.

The case also indicates that not only the banks have failed to ensure that mortgage was effected in accordance with the law, but also they have failed to check whether money was in fact, required for the projects and was used for purpose it was lent. By the collusion, the money paid by home buyers to builders which included money payable to the Authorities could be diverted, had the deposit made by home buyers been unutilised, money due under lease would have been paid to authorities before the creation of the mortgage. Money borrowed from bank, in fact, was not required for completion of these projects as the money paid by the buyers was enough for that purpose, but that was also diverted and the money obtained from the banks was also not utilised for the purpose it was taken and it was well within the knowledge of the bankers and Authorities that the funds were being diverted, but they remained mute spectators.

DIVERSION OF FUNDS

86. It has been observed in extensive detail in the forensic audit report that the Bank of Baroda, Syndicate Bank, Bank of India, Corporation Bank did not monitor utilisation of funds and acted as a mute spectator to diversion which was almost happening evidently in all banking transactions. In the case of Amrapali Zodiac Developers, Bank of Baroda has advanced an amount which was diverted immediately on receipt. The details have been given in the forensic auditors' report extracted above. There was no amount due as on the date of the transfer. In the case of Amrapali Princely Estate Pvt. Ltd., the details have been given with respect to the Syndicate Bank and Bank of India as to how immediately on receipt, 214 the funds were diverted to several parties. In the case of Amrapali Eden Park Developers Pvt. Ltd., there was a receipt from the Corporation Bank, and similar is the position. Immediately the funds were diverted to the third parties as detailed in the forensic report.

Details of diversion of loan funds have been given in a tabular form in Section XII from pages 426 to 457 of the report. The submissions which have been raised on behalf of Bank of Baroda that due observance of norms was observed before sanctioning the loan, before disbursal and an independent Lenders' Engineer had been appointed in order to monitor the contract. Monitoring was done during and post disbursal of loan by Bank of Baroda. As a matter of fact, the bank has not been able to show what steps it has taken to stop the diversion of funds to third parties on the same date of disbursal of the amount. The aforesaid stand of the Bank is falsified by the Forensic Auditors' report.

87. The transactions of Amrapali Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd. with J.P. Morgan were clearly in order to avoid the provisions of the Companies Act. It is apparent that Mr. Anil Mittal, Statutory Auditor, did not report his interest and disclosed about his relatives and junior employee as Director and shareholders. Mr. Chandan Kumar was a junior employee and Mr. Atul Mittal was his relative. Thus, it is apparent that Rudraksha Infracity Pvt. Ltd. was created for money laundering as aforesaid two Directors and shareholders had no income, Rudraksha Infracity Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated to receive funds from Mannat Buildcraft which was also created by Mr. Chander Wadhwa, CFO through his close associates. After receiving money from Mannat Buildcraft Pvt. Ltd., the same was transferred to J.P. Morgan Investments for purchasing equity shares of Amrapali Zodiac Pvt. Ltd. at an exorbitant price. There was no transaction before or after these transfers of monies in the aforesaid dummy companies. To suit the requirement of J.P. Morgan Investments, in entirety incorrect valuation report was prepared by M/s. Sudit K. Parikh & Co., Chartered Accountants.

The methodology and procedures defined of computation of fair market value were not followed at the time of exit. J.P. Morgan was having full control on Amrapali Zodiac Developers and no action could have taken as per clause 10.4.3 without investors' approval. The profit cannot be recognised until the project is completed. Thus, there cannot be any distributable amount as profit for distribution to J.P. Morgan. It has also been found by the Forensic Auditors that J.P. Morgan was in the knowledge of the fact that Amrapali Zodiac Developers had paid the money received to other companies of Amrapali group. Advances exceeded the limits specified in the shareholders' agreement, but J.P. Morgan did not ensure bringing back the money.

It was accepted by Mr. Suraj Chhabria that it was in his knowledge and that of J.P. Morgan that the money has been diverted from shareholder's agreement and share subscription agreement. The valuation of the shares did not follow the correct methodology of discounted cash flow as detailed out by the forensic auditors. The valuation exercise was done backwardly in order to inflate 216 the value of share to siphon out the money of home buyers through J.P. Morgan. 88. The FEMA rules prohibited the kind of transactions which were entered into with J.P. Morgan. Rule 4 of FEMA has been clearly violated. Master Circular No.8/2010-2011 of July 1, 2010, dealing with external commercial borrowings and trade credits clearly provides that external commercial borrowings are not permitted to be utilised for real estate business under the automatic route. The term real estate excludes the development of the integrated township. It was not a case of development of the integrated township.

Even if it is taken to be a case of integrated township as submitted on behalf of J.P. Morgan, then also for approval route, hedging is required as pointed out by the Forensic Auditors in their report and borrowers had to submit their report about the signing of loan agreement with the lender for obtaining Loan Registration Number. In case J.P. Morgan had invested in the form of ECB, following would have been the requirements:

(i) obtaining Loan Registration Number from the RBI;

(ii) file ECB-2 returns every month to the RBI,

(iii) to pay tax on interest payment to J.P. Morgan; and

(iv) to file income tax return.

We are in agreement with the findings of the forensic auditors in this regard. It is clear that it was a methodology adopted by the group to siphon out the funds of the home buyers in violation of the FEMA rules and the notifications and by the creation of dubious companies for which appropriate action is warranted by the concerned authorities.

89. The report of Forensic Audit also indicates that the Company has received a sum of Rs.140 crores during the financial year 2012-13 from IPFFI Singapore PTE Limited under Foreign Direct Investment Scheme. As per FEMA Rules, this amount was to be invested in real estate construction projects only.

90. The IPFFI Singapore PTE Limited which was incorporated on 20.5.2011, entered into a Share Subscription Agreement with ASCPL on 23.8.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.140 crores to ASCPL in the following manner on 7.8.2012:

(a) INR 85 crores received in Axis Bank, Indirapuram Branch on 7.8.2012.

(b) INR 55 crores received in BOB Escrow Account on 7.8.2012. Thus, a total sum of Rs.140 crores was received in Axis Bank. The amount was received in Axis Bank of INR 85 crores was transferred to Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt. Ltd. in three proportion. On 7.8.2012, Rs.5 crores were transferred. On 8.8.2012, an amount of Rs.50 crores was transferred and on 18.8.2012, Rs.30 crores were transferred. The ACPPL on receiving Rs.85 crores allotted equity shares worth INR 85 lakhs to ASCPL and balance INR 84.15 crores were treated as share premium account. There is no valuation report available as to how the share premium of INR 84.15 crores had been calculated.

This transfer of fund by ASCPL to ACPPL is termed as absolutely violative of FDI Rules and agreement. With respect to Rs.55 crores routed from IPFFI Singapore in the Escrow Account of Bank of Baroda, Escrow Account was transferred from 8.8.2012 to 28.9.2012 in the account of Bank of Baroda and used for payment of term loan instalments of OBC and Bank of Maharashtra for repayment of their term loan instalment. This money was not meant for payment of term loan instalment as per FDI Rules. It was to be used in the construction.

91. The ASCPL did not use the money for the project which was received from IPFII Singapore but transferred Rs.85 crores to ACPPL and Rs.55 crores to repay bank loan instalments and repay the outstanding creditors provided for in the books and standing in the books. The said payments have rightly been held by Auditors to be in contravention of the FDI norms and rules and for which the money was brought in India.

92. From 2013 to 2015, ASCPL has paid interest of Rs.58.81 crores @ 17 percent, which is a highly abnormal rate. A sum of Rs.14.41 crores was paid on 31.3.2013. Likewise, on 31.3.2014, Rs.22.20 crores were paid and on 31.3.2015, another amount of Rs.22.20 crores was paid. The violations were made with the knowledge of the IPFII Singapore and they were in connivance with the ASCPL.

93. The stand of the Bank of Baroda that they have independently appointed Lender's Engineer is of no avail. There was negligence on the part of Bank of Baroda and merely proceeding before the Court in 2017 to recover the amount is not going to serve the purpose. More so, in view of 219 the finding of the Forensic Audit that there was no necessity of obtaining the loan from the Bankers as Amrapali Group had sufficient money from the home buyers, which has also been diverted and has not been utilised in the construction activities. Other assets have been created with the help of the same and the borrowings have been used in order to siphon off the money by making payment of some unusual amount not only to J.P. Morgan, but also to IPFII Singapore in violation of the FEMA Rules and FDI Rules as found by the Auditors in the respective cases.

94. It was submitted that the Bank of Baroda has obtained the deed of corporate guarantee inter alia from Ultra Homes Construction Ltd, Rinku Clothing Creations Pvt. Ltd., Jotindra Steels and Tube Limited and Vidyashree Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. RoC search report and CA certificate had also been obtained. Lender's Legal Counsel Report dated 2.3.2012 verifying the validity and enforceability of financing documents and creation of securing on assets of ASCPL is also on record. Jotindra Steels and Tubes Limited issued a corporate guarantee, it was absolutely improper for the Bank of Baroda to discharge the bank guarantee without payment of amount in view of the fact that Jotindra Steels and Tubes Limited was not ready to subscribe to the capital was no ground for Bank of Baroda to discharge Jotindra Steels and Tubes Limited. Once guarantee has been given and in view of the finding recorded by the Forensic Auditors as to the nature of bid by the Jotindra Steels and Tubes Limited and other persons, it is apparent that action was illegal.

95. The leases had been granted by Noida and Greater Noida Authorities subject to the provisions contained in U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. Section 13 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 deals with imposition of penalty and mode of recovery of arrears, which states that where any transferee makes any default in the payment of any consideration money or instalment thereof or any other amount due on account of the transfer of any site or building by the Authority or any rent due to the Authority in respect of any lease or where any transferee or occupier makes any default in payment of any amount of fee or tax levied under the Act, in addition to the amount of arrears, a further sum not exceeding that amount shall be recovered from the transferee or occupier by way of penalty. Under Section 13-A, any amount payable to the Authority under Section 13 shall constitute a charge over the property and may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or by attachment and sale of property in the manner provided under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 (Act no.2 of 1959). Section 14 provides for the resumption of any site or building and forfeiture of whole or any part of the money if any paid in respect thereof.

"14. (1) In the case of non-payment of consideration money or any instalment thereof on account of the transfer by the Authority or any site or building or in case of any breach of any condition of such transfer or breach of any rules or regulations made under this Act, the Chief Executive Officer may resume the site or building so transferred and may further forfeit the whole or any part of the money if any paid in respect thereof.

(2) Where the Chief Executive Officer order resumption of any site or building under sub-section (1) the Collector may, on his requisition, cause possession thereof to be delivered to him and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary."

96. The Authorities have failed to take action under the aforesaid provisions. The Authorities have also failed to perform the statutory duty cast upon them to take prompt action. Merely filing of the case against Unitech Builders by way of petition in this Court did not furnish any grounds to the Authorities to remain silent spectator on the perpetration of fraud committed on the home buyers by Amrapali Group of Companies. Public trust doctrine requires an affirmative action, which was envisaged not only statutorily but under the Scheme also.

They were required to ensure that projects were completed within the stipulated period, otherwise, the very purpose of the grant would stand frustrated and colossal loss of public money. Amrapali Group did not pay even the amount due to be paid to the landowners on the part of land acquisition, it did not pay premium annual lease amount interest to Authorities. They have violated every condition, but still, Authorities were bent upon to condone everything. This reflects absolute dereliction of duty cast upon the Authorities.

97. The Noida and Greater Noida Authorities and the Bankers have permitted diversion of funds of home-buyers and the possession of other assets by Amrapali Group. The buyers' money had been diverted, which was meant for construction on payment of dues of Authorities in case they were paid timely by the Amrapali Group to the Authorities and to the Banks substantively liability would have been cleared. But by their inaction and rather conniving, the buyers were cheated by the Amrapali Group. Authorities did not object when mortgages were effected in favour of Banks in violation of conditions. Bankers could not have violated conditions.

Now, whatever complete/incomplete structures are there, the Authorities are claiming that buyers have no right and they have the first charge on the structure as they have to recover the amount, only thereafter if anything is left out, can be paid to the buyers. In case the submission is accepted, it would amount to playing further fraud upon the fraud. It was incumbent upon the Authorities as well as the Banks to prevent the fraud. Now, if Banks, as well as the Authorities, are permitted to recover the amount from the home-buyers' investment, in that case, it would be equally unjust and would be against the conscience of the law and nothing would be left for buyers not even a brick and the structures have come up by investing their money. Law never permits unjust gain based upon fraud.

The principle "fraud vitiates" is clearly attracted and such a transaction would become unenforceable and would be against the public trust doctrine. Real estate business can never prosper in case of breach of trust, bankers, Authorities in connivance and the builders are permitted to take away the innocent home-buyers' money without being accountable to their action/inaction. From tomorrow huge money will be collected from home buyers by the builder, banks would act in connivance and the Authorities sleep in slumber, permitting diversion of money of buyers/bankers, etc., and the home-buyers will be paying the dues of all concerned without investment of a penny by builder and rather they are diverting the money of the home-buyers in connivance with Authorities and Bankers and they are left without dream homes. If that is a factual scenario, no Court can permit such fraud to be perpetrated. Since "fraud vitiates", the bounden duty of the Court is to act as parens patria not only to save the home-buyers but also to ensure that they are not cheated. 98. Authorities and Bankers have not acted in furtherance of public interest and failed to perform duties enjoined upon them.

The kind of fraud that has taken place not only in Amrapali Group of Companies but at large as more than 70 percent of the various projects have not come up, is alarming to the Courts to take affirmative steps with the direction to prevent such frauds, restore the money of home-buyers and to punish incumbents responsible for such act. At the same time to ensure that buildings are completed. It cannot be denied that lifetime savings of homebuyers have been invested for purchase of a house with the faith and trust they have given the money. The scheme of the Government is to promote the real estate for which land had been acquired, even poor farmers have not been paid the compensation. The land allotted at throw away prices of 10%, the allotment premium has not been paid and in an illegal manner plots have been allotted on huge amount by builders is another fraud in collusion with Authorities.

99. How buyers get their houses and can be suitably compensated for the delay that has taken place in the matter and they are left at the juncture where the builder has diverted the funds for the last several years and no construction activities have taken place. For several years, no accounts were maintained from 2015 till date and a lot of money had been withdrawn from the Banks. The orders passed by this Court on 22.11.2017 to deposit 10 percent of the amount was not complied with by the Amrapali Group. Thereafter again on 17.5.2018, this Court permitted them to carry forward the project, but they did not do so and were not ready to deposit the amount of Rs.250 crores to show their bona fide to undertake construction activity and efforts had been made to wriggle out of assurances on which basis this Court had passed the orders.

100. On behalf of Authorities provisions contained in Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership, and Maintenance) Act, 2010 has been pressed into service. It is submitted that transfer cannot be made in favour of home-buyer without executing the Transfer Deed. As per Section 5 of Act of 2010, flat buyers become entitled to ownership and possession of the Apartment and undivided interest in the common areas as specified in the deed of the Apartment. It is further submitted that tripartite sub-lease deed has to be entered into in order to transfer ownership to the home-buyers, consisting of Authorities, builders and home-buyers and before that is done, it is necessary for builder to obtain the completion certificate on fulfilment of certain conditions. The main objection raised by the counsel is with respect to the issuance of completion certificate is default of the payment of amount with interest to be made under lease and relating to fire safety.

It is also pointed out that completion certificate is necessary to be issued, the issuance of the same would depend upon payment of the dues and the Authorities, later on, will have no mechanism to recover the dues, once registered conveyance deed is executed in favour of home-buyers. According to Authorities, the buyers may contend that they have paid the entire consideration to the builder, who has defaulted in making the payment for the flat and the privity of making the payment is between the concerned Authorities and the builder. It is also submitted on behalf of Authorities that in part completion also, the certificate can be issued against the part payment received, however, the completion certificate would be issued in the same proportion minus 10 percent so that financial interest of the Authorities is protected. Sub-lease deed would be executed as per the present policy up to 90 percent of the proportion in which part payment has been received.

101. In our opinion, in the ordinary course, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the aforesaid propositions. However, in the instant case, the facts indicate that 9000 families are residing for the last several years out of the sheer necessity of shelter place and they have not been provided with electricity connections and other facilities due to non-issuance of occupancy certificate by the concerned authorities. Most of them have paid the entire amount to the builders. The amount outstanding as against home buyers have to be used in completion of building. The payment to be made to concerned Authorities had also been collected by the builder from home buyers as component of price of flat, but has not been deposited with the concerned Authorities and the home buyers' money had been diverted, which was more than the dues of the Authorities and the Banks taken together.

Had timely action been taken by them no amount could have been diverted and the position would have been different as it stands today. However, since we have attached various other properties where home buyers' money has been invested, the rights of the Authorities as well as bankers to get the money recovered from the other properties of the builder Amrapali Group/Directors and where they have invested money and belonging to the guarantors in the various transactions. However, at the same time for want of payment to Authorities and Bankers by the builder under these facts and circumstances, it would be absolutely improper for the Authorities to deny issuance of occupancy or completion certificate, especially on the ground of non-payment of dues.

As per the interim orders, we have ensured that fire safety devices are fitted in buildings at appropriate places wherever necessary and in case it is lacking at any place we have to ensure that they are fitted and there are no other violations pointed out in the construction so far made. Thus, the concerned Authorities have to issue occupancy certificate as well as completion certificate with respect to the projects in which home buyers residing without insisting for the payment of their dues. This Court has to monitor the payment of the dues to the Authorities as well as the Bankers, from guarantors and other proprietors. The innocent buyers cannot be made to suffer for no fault on their part.

102. Once Authorities have allowed 9000 home-buyers to occupy the premises without terminating the lease on the ground that occupation is illegal. Obviously, builders have put them in possession, they are not the encroachers and they have invested their valuable saving and have no other shelter place to live. They cannot be deprived of their houses and cannot be left without basic necessities of life like water, electricity, etc. The concerned Authorities are responsible to provide electricity, water, and all other basic amenities to buyers as they have the right to occupy the premises. In the peculiar facts of the case, we have directed the Authorities to provide basic necessities forthwith.

We also direct the Central Government and Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that everything is done to protect the interest of the home-buyers obviously without obliging the builders. Wherever we seek any favour for homebuyers, we see that defrauding parties i.e., promoters/builders are further obliged by making certain concessions by the Government that would amount to perpetrating further fraud and unjust enrichment of builder. The case poses challenge to the law enforcement agencies to act in tandem to book such culprits.

103. When there are defaults galore, creation of fake and dummy companies in an unbridled manner, it passes comprehension that how the Statutory Auditor has failed to discharge the duty cast upon him and the officials of the Amrapali Group also shared hard earned money of homebuyers in an illegal manner by siphoning it off. Directors had obtained salaries without doing anything. Money is diverted and siphoned off in other projects. Office junior employees, peons and relatives etc. were inducted as Directors just to defraud the home-buyers of their money and to siphon it out. Without material being supplied, a large amount of money had been paid by way of forge purchases as a method to divert money even through authorised signatories and the Companies of the relatives, family members and relations of the Directors and Guarantors also.

In the case fraud is to such large extent, it is difficult to capsulise the facts in a narrow compass, for that when we see the report and good job done by the Forensic Auditors to unearthed the fraud. They have gone into minute details forensically and done their job extremely well, due to which serious kind of fraud has been unearthed with the involvement of so many persons as referred to by them. We direct the concerned Authorities to look into the violation of the FEMA and FDI norms as projected by the Forensic Auditors in their report and to submit progress report in this Court.

IN RE: RERA

104. The Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha on 10.3.2016 and in the Lok Sabha on 15.3.2016. The Bill intended to standardise business practices and transactions in the real estate sector. It intends to ensure consumer protection. It intends to regulate transaction related to both residential and commercial projects. The Statement of Objects and Reasons are as under:

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The real estate sector plays a catalytic role in fulfilling the need and demand for housing and infrastructure in the country. While this sector as grown significantly in recent years, it has been largely unregulated, with absence of professionalism and standardisation and lack of adequate consumer protection. Though the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is available as a forum to the buyers in the real estate market, the recourse is only curative and is not adequate to address all the concerns of buyers and promoters in that sector. The lack of standardisation has been a constraint to the healthy and orderly growth of industry. Therefore, the need for regulating the sector has been emphasised in various forums.

2. In view of the above, it becomes necessary to have a Central legislation, namely, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 2013 in the interests of effective consumer protection, uniformity, and standardisation of business practices and transactions in the real estate sector. The proposed Bill provides for the establishment of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (the Authority) for regulation and promotion of real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in an efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in real estate sector and establish the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions, directions or orders of the Authority.

3. The proposed Bill will ensure greater accountability towards consumers, and significantly reduce frauds and delays as also the current high transaction costs. It attempts to balance the interests of consumers and promoters by imposing certain responsibilities on both. It seeks to establish symmetry of information between the promoter and purchaser, transparency of contractual conditions, set minimum standards of accountability and a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism. The proposed Bill will induct professionalism and standardisation in the sector, thus paving the way for accelerated growth and investments in the long run.

4. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 2013 inter alia provides for the following, namely:-

(a) to impose an obligation upon the promoter not to book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project without registering the real estate project with the Authority;

(b) to make the registration of real estate project compulsory in case where the area of land proposed to be developed exceed one thousand square meters or number of apartments proposed to be developed exceed twelve;

(c) to impose an obligation upon the real estate agent not to facilitate sale or purchase of any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, without registering himself with the Authority;

(d) to impose liability upon the promoter to pay such compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under the proposed legislation, in case if he fails to 230 discharge any obligations imposed on him under the proposed legislation;

(e) to establish an Authority to be known as the Real Estate Regulatory Authority by the appropriate Government, to exercise the powers conferred on it and to perform the functions assigned to it under the proposed legislation;

(f) the functions of the Authority shall, inter alia, include -

(i) to render advice to the appropriate Government in matters relating to the development of real estate sector;

(ii) to publish and maintain a website of records of all real estate projects for which registration has been given, with such details as may be prescribed;

(iii) to ensure compliance of the obligation cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under the proposed legislation;

(g) to establish an Advisory Council by the Central Government to advice and recommend the Central Government on -

(i) matters concerning the implementation of the proposed legislation;

(ii) major questions of policy;

(iii) protection of consumer interest;

(iv) growth and development of the real estate sector;

(h) to establish the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal by the appropriate Government to hear appeals from the direction, decision or order of the Authority or the adjudicating officer;

(i) to appoint an adjudicating officer by the Authority for adjudging compensation under sections 12, 14 and 16 of the proposed legislation;

(j) to make provision for punishment and penalties for contravention of the provisions of the proposed legislation and for non-compliance of orders of Authority or Appellate Tribunal;

(k) to empower the appropriate Government to supersede the Authority on certain circumstances specified in the proposed legislation;

(l) to empower the appropriate Government to issue directions to the Authority and obtain reports and returns from it.

(5) The Notes on clauses explain in detail the various provisions contained in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 2013.

(6) The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives."

105. It is apparent from the aims and objectives that Act ensures greater accountability towards consumers and significantly reduce fraud and delays. Accountability standards have been laid down where duties cast upon promotors as well as the effort has been made to make consumer also responsible.

106. Before coming to the rival submission with respect to RERA, we deem it appropriate to note certain provisions. Common areas have been defined under Section 2(n). The apartment has been defined under Section 2(e). Section 2(k) defines carpet area, whereas Section 2(q) defines completion certificate. Completion certificate to mean that certificate issued by competent authority certifying that the project has been developed according to the sanctioned plan, layout plan and specifications as approved by the competent authority. Occupancy certificate has been defined in Section 2(zf) which states that certificate issued by the competent authority permitting occupation of any building which has provision for civic infrastructures such as water, sanitation, and electricity. Section 2(zk) defines promoter as a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent building or a building consisting of apartments or converts an existing building for the purpose of selling to other persons; a person who develops land into a project; any development authority or any other public body; an apex State level co-operative housing society etc.; any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or by any other name; and such other person who constructed any building or apartment for sale to general public.

107. It is provided under Section 3 that no promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale any plot, apartment or building in any real estate project or part of it without registration with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under the Act. The provisions of the Act have also been made applicable to the ongoing projects on the date of commencement of the Act and for which completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the Authority for registration of said project within three months from the date of commencement of the Act. The projects of Amrapali Group have registration under the RERA is an admitted fact. The provisions of the RERA are applicable is also not in dispute.

108. Section 4 requires the application to be filed with specified documents for the purpose of registration. As per Section 4(2)(l)(D), 70 percent of the amount realised for the real estate project from the allottees, from time to time, shall be deposited in a separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank to cover the cost of construction and the land cost and shall be used only for that purpose and the promotor shall withdraw only to the proportion of the percentage of completion of the project. The accounts have to be audited in every six months and chartered accountant has to certify that amounts collected for a particular project have been utilised for that project and the withdrawal has been in compliance with the proportion of the percentage of the completion of the project. The provisions of Section 4(2)(l)(D) is extracted hereunder:

"4. Application for registration of real estate projects.- (1)** (2) The promoter shall enclose the following documents along with the application referred to in sub-section (1), namely: - 233 (l) a declaration, supported by an affidavit, which shall be signed by the promoter or any person authorised by the promoter, stating:- (A)** (B)** (C)** (D) that seventy per cent of the amounts realised for the real estate project from the allottees, from time to time, shall be deposited in a separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank to cover the cost of construction and the land cost and shall be used only for that purpose: Provided that the promoter shall withdraw the amounts from the separate account, to cover the cost of the project, in proportion to the percentage of completion of the project:

Provided further that the amounts from the separate account shall be withdrawn by the promoter after it is certified by an engineer, an architect and a chartered accountant in practice that the withdrawal is in proportion to the percentage of completion of the project: Provided also that the promoter shall get his accounts audited within six months after the end of every financial year by a chartered accountant in practice, and shall produce a statement of accounts duly certified and signed by such chartered accountant and it shall be verified during the audit that the amounts collected for a particular project have been utilised for that project and the withdrawal has been in compliance with the proportion to the percentage of completion of the project. Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, the term "schedule bank" means a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934);"

109. When we consider the provisions in the instant case, it was necessary to deposit the amount in the account. In the year 2015, the RERA was in contemplation and certain provisions came into force on 1.5.2016 and some more Sections i.e., 3 to 19, 40, 59 to 70 and 79 and 80 came into force with effect from 1.5.2017.

110. A blatant violation of the provisions of RERA has been done by the Amrapali Group. Since RERA contemplates timely completion of projects once registration has been granted under Section 5 and extension of registration under Section 6, it is only in the event of force majeure in case 234 there is no default on the part of the promoter, registration can be extended in aggregate for the period not exceeding one year.

Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature. The registration granted under Section 5 is valid for a period declared by the promoter. Section 7 provides that the Authority may on receipt of a complaint or suo motu or on the recommendation of the competent authority revoke the registration granted under Section 5 in case promoter makes default in doing anything required by or under the Act or the rules or the regulation made thereunder; the promoter violates any of the terms of approval given by the competent authority; the promoter is involved in any kind of unfair practice or irregularities. It is also independently provided that in case the promoter indulges in any fraudulent practices, the registration can be revoked. Upon revocation of the registration, the promoter shall be debarred from accessing the website in relation to that project under Section 7(4)(a). Under Section 7(4)(b), the Authority shall facilitate the remaining development works to be carried out in accordance with provisions of Section 8. Provisions of Section 7 is extracted hereunder:

"7. Revocation of registration. -

(1) The Authority may, on receipt of a complaint or suo motu in this behalf or on the recommendation of the competent authority, revoke the registration granted under section 5, after being satisfied that-

(a) the promoter makes default in doing anything required by or under this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder;

(b) the promoter violates any of the terms or conditions of the approval given by the competent authority;

(c) the promoter is involved in any kind of unfair practice or irregularities.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, the term "unfair practice means" a practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale or development of any real estate project adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-

(A) the practice of making any statement, whether in writing or the visible representation which,-

(i) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard or grade;

(ii) represents that the promoter has approval or affiliation which such promoter does not have;

(iii) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the services;

(B) the promoter permits the publication of any advertisement or prospectus whether in any newspaper or otherwise of services that are not intended to be offered;

(d) the promoter indulges in any fraudulent practices.

(2) The registration granted to the promoter under section 5 shall not be revoked unless the Authority has given to the promoter not less than thirty days notice, in writing, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the registration, and has considered any cause shown by the promoter within the period of that notice against the proposed revocation.

(3) The Authority may, instead of revoking the registration under sub-section (1), permit it to remain in force subject to such further terms and conditions as it thinks fit to impose in the interest of the allottees, and any such terms and conditions so imposed shall be binding upon the promoter.

(4) The Authority, upon the revocation of the registration,-

(a) shall debar the promoter from accessing its website in relation to that project and specify his name in the list of defaulters and display his photograph on its website and also inform the other Real Estate Regulatory Authority in other States and Union territories about such revocation or registration;

(b) shall facilitate the remaining development works to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 8;

(c) shall direct the bank holding the project back account, specified under subclause (D) of clause (I) of sub-section (2) of section 4, to freeze the account, and thereafter take such further necessary actions, including consequent de-freezing of the said account, towards facilitating the remaining 236 development works in accordance with the provisions of section 8;

(d) may, to protect the interest of allottees or in the public interest, issue such directions as it may deem necessary."

111. It is clear that RERA intends for completion of the project in case any fraud is committed by the promoter and the activity is not completed, the home-buyers cannot be left in lurch, allowing the prayer on behalf of Bankers as well as by the Authorities would amount to unfair treatment of home buyers in the facts of this case. It is too late for them to submit that home buyer has no rights in the teeth of the provisions contained in the RERA, which intends to prevent fraud.

112. Once registration lapses on non-completion of project within the time stipulated or it is revoked the consequence ensue as enumerated in Section 8 of RERA, the Authority is enjoined upon the duty to consult with the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or any other manner as may be determined by the Authority. The development work has to be completed and cannot be left in between. Section 8 reads thus;

"8. Obligation of Authority consequent upon lapse of or on revocation of registration.- Upon lapse of the registration or on revocation of the registration under this Act, the Authority, may consult the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem fit including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or in any other manner, as may be determined by the Authority: Provided that no direction, decision or order of the Authority under this section shall take effect until the expiry of the period of appeal provided under the provisions of this Act: 237 Provided further that in case of revocation of registration of a project under this Act, the association of allottees shall have the first right of refusal for carrying out of the remaining development works."

113. Functions and duties of the promoter are specified in Section 11. As per the provisions of this Section, the promoter shall be responsible to obtain the completion certificate or the occupancy certificate. He shall also be responsible for providing and maintaining the essential services on reasonable charges, till taking over of the maintenance by the association of the allottees. The promoter shall enable the formation of an association or society or co-operative society or federation of allottees. He shall pay all outgoings until he transfers the physical possession to the allottee. After he has executed an agreement for sale for any apartment, plot or building, he may not mortgage or create a charge on such an apartment, plot or building and if any such mortgage or charge is made or created then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, it shall not affect the right and interest of the allottee. It is clearly provided under Section 11(4)(h), which is extracted hereunder: "11. Functions and duties of promoter.-

(4) The promoter shall- (h) after he executes an agreement for sale for any apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, not mortgage or create a charge on such apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and if any such mortgage or charge is made or created then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, it shall not affect the right and interest of the allottee who has taken or agreed to take such apartment, plot or building, as the case may be;"

114. It is clear that is the duty of the promoter to abide by the time schedule of the completion of the project of the allottee. The time of 238 completion of the project is fixed from the date of the agreement. Though the RERA has come into force after the mortgage had been created, the intendment of RERA is that after the execution of the agreement no such mortgage or charge should be created.

115. Section 14 provides adherence to sanctioned plans and project specifications by the promoter. Section 15 deals with the obligations of the promoter in case of transfer of a real estate project to a third party. The promoter shall not transfer or assign his majority rights and liabilities to a third party without obtaining the prior written consent of two-thirds allottees and without the prior written approval of the Authority. Section 16 deals with obligations of promoter regarding the insurance of real estate project. Section 17 provides for the transfer of title. It is incumbent upon the promoter to execute a registered conveyance deed in favour of the allottee along with undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority and the possession of the plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, shall be handed over to the allottees and the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be. Section 17(1) is extracted hereunder:

"17. Transfer of title.-

(1) The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed in favour of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, and hand over the physical possession of the plot, apartment of building, as the case may be, to the allottees and the common areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, in a real estate project, and the other title documents pertaining thereto within specified period as per sanctioned plans as provided under the local laws:

Provided that, in the absence of any local law, conveyance deed in favour of the allottee or the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, under this section shall be carried out by the promoter within three months from date of issue of occupancy certificate."

116. It is apparent that after the transfer of conveyance deed, the title vests in the allottee and of the common area in the association of the allottees or the competent authority as the case may be. No title remains with the promoter.

117. Section 18 deals with the return of amount and compensation. In case promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees. In case the allottee wants to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, the promoter has to return the amount received in respect of that apartment, plot, building with interest in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under the Act.

118. The rights and liabilities of allottees are provided in Section 19, which is reproduced hereunder:

"19. Rights and duties of allottees.-

(1) The allottee shall be entitled to obtain the information relating to sanctioned plans, layout plans along with the specifications, approved by the competent authority and such other information as provided in this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or the agreement for sale signed with the promoter.

(2) The allottee shall be entitled to know stage-wise time schedule of completion of the project, including the provisions for water, sanitation, electricity and other amenities and services as agreed to between the promoter and the allottee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale.

(3) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the possession of apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and the association of allottees shall be entitled to claim the possession of the common areas, as per the declaration given by the promoter under subclause (C) of clause (I) of sub-section (2) of section 4. (4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.

(5) The allottee shall be entitled to have the necessary documents and plans, including that of common areas, after handing over the physical possession of the apartment or plot or building as the case may be, by the promoter.

(6) Every allottee, who has entered into an agreement for sale to take an apartment, plot or building as the case may be, under section 13, shall be responsible to make necessary payments in the manner and within the time as specified in the said agreement for sale and shall pay at the proper time and place, the share of the registration charges, municipal taxes, water and electricity charges, maintenance charges, ground rent, and other charges, if any.

(7) The allottee shall be liable to pay interest, at such rate as may be prescribed, for any delay in payment towards any amount or charges to be paid under sub-section (6).

(8) The obligations of the allottee under sub-section (6) and the liability towards interest under sub-section (7) may be reduced when mutually agreed to between the promoter and such allottee.

(9) Every allottee of the apartment, plot or building as the case may be, shall participate towards the formation of an association or society or cooperative society of the allottees, or a federation of the same.

(10) Every allottee shall take physical possession of the apartment, plot or building as the case may be, within a period of two months of the occupancy certificate issued for the said apartment, plot or building, as the case may be.

(11) Every allottee shall participate towards registration of the conveyance deed of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, as provided under sub-section (1) of section 17 of this Act."

119. Certain rights and duties as well as the liabilities to pay interest in case of default on the part of allottees are also provided in the provisions contained in Section 19. Chapter V provides for Real Estate Regulatory Authority, whereas Chapter VI deals with the Central Advisory Council. The provisions relating to Real Estate Appellate Tribunal are provided in Chapter VII. Chapter VIII contains provisions relating to offences, penalties, and adjudication and Chapter IX deals with finance, accounts, audits, and reports.

120. It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 10 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond 1 year.

121. It is clear that common areas as provided under Section 17 have to be ultimately handed over to the Association of Allottees or the Competent Authority as the case may be. Thus, any sub-lease, alienation or transfer affected by the promoter of the common areas as defined in the RERA and otherwise reserved under the plan shall be void and inoperative.

122. As the basic obligations have not been complied with by the promoters, they cannot also be entitled to FAR. It was pointed out on behalf of Authorities that permissible FAR is 2.75, whereas it has been 242 wrongly mentioned and worked out at 3.50 by the Amrapali Group. In the instant case, we find that there is serious kind of fraud by the promotors as such they cannot be said to be entitled to avail the FAR to utilise it or to alienate and more so when they have failed to complete the projects and pay the dues.

123. It is also apparent from the provisions of the Act of 1976 as well as RERA and also the case set up by the Authorities that partial occupation certificate can also be issued. The completion certificate can be issued partially also as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership, and Maintenance) Act, 2010.

The main obstacle is said to be non-deposit of the amount which may be ordered to be paid, for that we may clarify in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be secured and recovered by way of selling other attached properties and the one, which have been created out of the diverted funds of the home-buyers and property of guarantors etc. The banks' borrowings have to be taken care of in a similar manner. The money payable to the Authorities had been diverted and huge amount of buyers' money had not been invested in the projects neither any part of the money of bank borrowings, in fact, were spent in the construction as found by the Forensic Auditors. The promoters are held accountable for the diversion of the money paid by the buyers as component of price of flats even on account of payment to Authorities.

124. There appears to be non-issuance of the completion certificate, whereas the buildings are being occupied, we direct issue of completion certificate. This Court has to monitor the payment of dues of the Authorities and Banks and that outstanding are not going to create hurdle in the execution of the registered document/conveyance deed in favour of home buyers. It has to be executed by the concerned Authorities as well as by the Court Receiver and by the home buyers. The amount which is due on the part of home buyers has to be deposited in the account, which has been opened, in the UCO Bank by this Court. It has to be utilised firstly for the purpose of completion of the buildings and for providing other facilities and the home buyers of incomplete projects also have to deposit the outstanding amount on their part in the aforesaid account opened in the UCO Bank and out of that amount, it has to be disbursed as per the orders to be passed by this Court for the purpose of construction and outstanding if any, shall be used for the purpose of payment of compensation to home buyers for the period of delay as per the agreement or as may be determined ultimately and other dues.

125. With respect to percentage of profit of NBCC, we fix it at 8 percent. As it is a Government Undertaking, NBCC has to ensure that DPR is prepared reasonably and the work to be completed as expeditiously as possible. 126. Learned senior counsel on behalf of Bank of Baroda submitted that Amrapali Group as per the conditions of the lease deed executed by the 244 Noida Authority had the right to mortgage the land with the prior permission of the authority for raising loans for the purpose of financing investment in the project. No doubt the lease deed contained a stipulation as to mortgage with prior permission but no clear-cut permission had been obtained from Noida authority.

Noida authority has clearly stated as rider that until and unless the entire due premium is paid along with lease money due, no mortgage can be effected. The stand of the authority is clear that without payment of land dues no mortgage could be effected. Thus, in fact in the eye of the law no mortgage could be created as there was no permission to mortgage unless the dues were paid and thus the bank could not have mortgaged the property before clearance of the dues of the Noida Authority, and secondly, the mortgage was permissible for the purpose of financing the investment in the project. As a matter of fact, when this was the stipulation, it was the banker's duty to ensure that money made available was invested in the project.

127. The Forensic Auditors' report makes it apparent that Bankers have failed to ensure and oversee that the money was invested in the projects. It was diverted elsewhere as rightly found by the Forensic Auditors. Thus, no charge can be said to have been created by bank loans on the projects as the money, in fact, it has not been used in the projects as such home buyers cannot be saddled with liability and also the projects. Even what was paid by the home buyers, had not been used in the projects and stands diverted.

There was, in fact, no necessity for raising the loans from the bank. The money borrowed from banks was used to create other assets worth thousands of crores. Thus, the banks can realise their money from those assets and from guarantors and not from the investment of home buyers, not from the buildings in which loans granted by banks have not been invested, which have been erected partially or some are at the nascent stage, for which hard-earned money has been paid by the home buyers. Home buyers are not direct party to the bank loan, thus it was the duty of the bankers and Noida authorities, if they wanted to impose their charge, to ensure that no fraud takes place and money is invested in the projects for the purpose for which it has been taken not only the money paid by the home buyers but obtained from the banks and due to be paid to Noida authorities, is not usurped illegally by promoter/builder.

Though it was realised as part of the component of the price of flat from the home buyers, by the promoters/builders its illegal diversion was permitted by Amrapali Group in connivance with the officers of the authorities and the bank. Thus, the very condition of investment in the project by bankers, subject to which the mortgage was permissible, had been violated. Thus, it cannot be said that any charge of the banks has been created on the projects. The charge would be on the property which has been purchased/created by dubious methods. It would be inequitable to fasten the charge against the investment made by the home buyers whereas they have not been benefited and rather have been cheated by the promoters for which bankers, as well as authorities, have to share the blame. We cannot 246 perpetuate another fraud on the innocent home buyers in facts of the case of fastening liability of amounts payable to Authorities and Bankers.

128. Learned senior counsel on behalf of the Bank of Baroda, also submitted that the home buyers are not secured creditors, as such they have no right over secured creditors. While making the aforesaid submissions the provisions of RERA have been ignored. Though they may not be a secured creditor, they have a right to be treated in accordance with the law, fairly and they cannot be subjected to a fraudulent action by the promoters, that too in connivance with the bankers and officials of the Noida and Greater Noida authorities. Even otherwise, in such a situation the court has to come to their rescue and protect their interests, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that buyers get flats and development work is completed as intended under the RERA and the flats are handed over to home buyers after completion. In case the fraud is permitted to be perpetrated on the home buyers, the very purpose of enactment of RERA would stand defeated.

129. No doubt about it as submitted on behalf of Amrapali group of companies, that the provisions of RERA are for protecting the interests of promoters also. No doubt about it that the RERA intends to protect the interests of the promoters and home buyers both. However, in the instant case, we have given the opportunity to the promoters to deposit the 10% of the amount in December 2017 and January 2018 but orders have met with non-compliance with all impunity. Thereafter on the assurance of the Amrapali Group that it would undertake the construction work and a joint plan was submitted after great wastage of time and energy and then order dated 17.5.2018 was passed that was also not complied with. It was passed on a condition that a sum of Rs.250 crores to be deposited which was also not deposited by the Amrapali group to show its bona fide.

The Group never intended right from the beginning to complete the construction work, has been rightly observed by Forensic Auditors. Thereafter, we have assigned the work to the NBCC. But at the same time, the effort has been made by Amrapali Group/ its Directors to sell the property which has been created by diversion of home buyers' funds. Incorrect facts have been stated and suppressions have been made in various affidavits filed in this Court that the certain properties are not encumbered. Various applications are being filed one after the other by the encumbered holders with respect to several properties that they have the charge over the said property.

130. That apart, several attached properties have been put to sale by DRT under the orders of this Court. In most of the cases, no buyers have turned up and/or the price offered by forming a cartel are too low. The property cannot be sold at throw away price. For example, in the case of a hospital situated at Noida, the very group of doctors wanted to purchase, it who are running it, at a paltry sum by forming a cartel. Aforesaid is one of the examples of cartel formation that is how Amrapali group is instrumental in not allowing the properties to be sold. There appears to be some invisible hand holding buyers out and even the bankers are not coming up to finance the purchasers, is the genuine grievance pointed out at the Bar. Be that as it may. Entire gamut of facts indicates the contumacious conduct of Amrapali Group, proper and correct disclosures on oath have not been made, even encumbrances are not being specified clearly in spite of repeated orders passed by us. They have sold several valuable properties during pendency of petitions as pointed out by the Forensic Audit Report. In the aforesaid circumstances, the submission raised on behalf of Amrapali group that under the provisions of the RERA their interest should be protected.

In our opinion, considering the serious kind of fraud unearthed on the forensic audit, formation of dummy companies, violation of norms of foreign investment, violation of FEMA, siphoning off the money of home buyers, making payment of dividend without profits and a methodology had been devised of valuing the shares on an unreasonable higher basis so as to siphon out the money of the home buyers to J.P. Morgan etc.

The creation of a large number of assets with the help of money of the home buyers. The Forensic Audit unfolds the true story of Amrapali Group. Right from 2015, no construction activity has taken place. Account books had not been maintained and money has been transferred continuously. No audit was made. Money was taken out from banks, and fake purchases have been made. Thus, they are not at all entitled for any indulgence under the provisions of the RERA. In view of their unholy conduct, defying description, their contumacious fraudulent conduct totally disentitles them and they are required to be dealt with as sternly as possible so as to make it exemplary one that such fraudulent actions do not recur in future, in real estate business in India. We are not a country in which Courts will permit such action and permit a person to go scot-free.

131. The agreement initially executed in favour of home buyers to purchase flats may not create any right in the property in praesenti, it will be only on the execution of the registered document that title is going to be perfected, but investment in project is only of home buyers. In this case, as they have paid money invested in projects, it is for the courts to do complete justice between the parties and to protect the investment so made and interests of home buyers and to ensure that they get the perfect title and the fruits of their hard earned money and lifetime savings invested in the projects.

132. On behalf of Bank of Baroda, learned senior counsel submitted that the agreement of promoter/builder with home buyers is unregistered as such, no right has been created in the immovable property in view of the provisions contained in section 49 of the Registration Act. The submission ignores and overlooks the provisions of RERA which intends to prevent such frauds on home buyers and ensure completion of projects and that of the agreement between promoters and buyers. There are various rights under the agreement as well as under the RERA. The agreement entered into at the time of allotment is the basis of the investment in the projects made by home buyers, it cannot be said to be a scrap of paper. It is their valuable investment which is required to be protected and cannot be 250 permitted to be taken away by builder or secured creditors in an illegal manner. The provisions of section 17 of the Registration Act no doubt provide that a document of title requires compulsory registration, no doubt registered document has to be executed that also has to be taken care of by the Court so as to protect the interest of home buyers.

133. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank of Baroda urged that by virtue of the provisions contained in section 11(4)(g) of the RERA Act, it is the duty of the promoter to pay all outgoings until he transfers the physical possession of the real estate project to the allottee or the association of allottees, which he has collected from the allottees, for the payment of outgoings, including the land cost, ground rent, municipal or other legal taxes, charges for water or electricity, maintenance charges, including the mortgage loan and interest on mortgages or other encumbrances and such other liabilities payable to competent authorities, banks and financial institutions, which are related to the project. The two expressions of the provisions of Section 11(4)(g) are significant.

Firstly, which the promoter has collected from the allottees. Secondly "which are related to the project". In the instant case dues of the Noida/Greater Noida authorities have been collected from the allottees by the promoters but the authorities have permitted diversion of said amount by not taking any action in view of the chronic default right from the beginning. Though they knew that the promoter had booked the flats, even the permission to grant sub-lease of the plot had been granted in totally illegal manner without 251 payment of dues of premium and lease rent etc. Conditional permission to the mortgage was issued without payment of the premium lease money etc. so as to perpetuate the fraud being done by the promoters.

The mortgage created ought to have been objected in view of the conditions subject to which it could have been done. Obviously, it was done by Amrapali Group in connivance with officials of Authorities including the bankers. Thus when the authorities have themselves permitted fraudulent action money has been diverted, which has been paid by home buyers for payment to Authorities also, as premium was component of price and as bankers have also permitted diversion of loan amount, mostly on same day, it cannot be said in the facts of the case, that any amount of the bankers or that of authorities remains invested in the project. The sine qua non is the expression "which are related to the project" would mean that that amount recoverable from the allottee is the one which has been invested in the project.

A third person can be held liable for the money payable to secured creditors in case it has been invested in the project, in case it has not been spent in constructions, same cannot be permitted to be realised from the project/home buyers, the investment of home buyers cannot be frittered away and to fasten liability upon the innocent buyers/allottees in that event would tantamount to perpetrating yet another fraud on them. Accountability, as per law, has to be fastened on promoters/builders and all concerned. It would amount to total deprivation of money of home buyers without any fault on their part or legal liability. It would amount to fastening liability upon them once over again by misuse of the process of 252 law.

The factual matrix unfolded on forensic audit indicates serious kind of fraud that has taken place which would shut the enforcement of liability clause as against the home buyers. The provisions of the first and second charge cannot come to the rescue of Authorities/Bankers. Under Section 11(4)(g) the promoter has to pay all outgoings which he has collected from the allottees, the payment of outgoings includes land cost, ground rent, charges for water or electricity, maintenance charges etc. As per the proviso to Section 11(4)(g), the promoter shall continue to be liable, even after the transfer of the property, to pay such outgoings and penal charges, if any, to the authorities. Outgoings which have been collected by the promoter can be and have to be recovered in the facts and circumstance of the case from them as intended by section 11(4)(g) of RERA.

134. Learned senior counsel on behalf of the Bank of Baroda submitted that the provisions of section 11(4)(h) of RERA provides that the promoter, after he executes an agreement for sale for any apartment, plot or building, cannot mortgage or create a charge on such an apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and if any such mortgage or charge is made or created then it shall not affect the right and interest of the allottee who has taken or agreed to take such apartment, plot or building, as the case may be. The provision has a non-obstante clause. As the provision has given an overriding effect by non-obstante clause, the provision is no help to the banks as the agreement had been by promoters with home buyers entered into earlier in point of time to the creation of the mortgage. There could not have been any mortgage created subsequently and even if validly created, it would not affect the right and interest of the allottee as intended by RERA.

Thus, the right and interest of the allottee are safeguarded by virtue of the provisions contained in section 11(4)(h). As the project was pending, the provision intends to confer a right on the allottee and save the allottees and also their interests from such liability. Even if the provision is held not applicable on the ground that RERA came into force later, since there was no valid mortgage as held by us, it was incapable of affecting the right or interest of the allottee. Had it been ensured that the money due to Noida and Greater Noida authorities was paid by the promoters to the authorities, the fraud of siphoning of money would not have taken place to the extent it has been done. Moreover, the money borrowed from banks has not been invested in the projects. In fact, projects required no funding. It would be iniquitous to charge the allottees with the bankers' money. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that rights or interests of the allottees are not at all affected by the mortgage created by the bankers or by the dues of the Noida or Greater Noida authorities.

135. On behalf of the Bank of Baroda, Shri Maninder Singh learned senior counsel has submitted that section 4(2)(1) of the RERA requires the promoter to disclose the prior encumbrance. Therefore, the RERA contemplates the creation of encumbrance even before the project is registered and such a plot can be offered to allottees. Basically, a declaration is required under section 4(2)(l)(A) that the land is free from all encumbrances or as the case may be, details of the encumbrances, if any, on such land, should be disclosed. The intention is that the allottee should know about the encumbrance if any. The provision does not espouse the cause of the bank in any manner whatsoever.

136. On the strength of the provision of section 19(4) of RERA, learned senior counsel has submitted that the allottee should be entitled to claim the refund and compensation, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provision of the RERA or the rules and regulations made thereunder. He submitted that the right of the allottees is restricted to only receiving the compensation from the promoters.

We wholly disagree with the submission. It is made in oblivion of the provisions of Section 8 of the RERA which provides for completion of the development projects by the competent authority or by the association of allottees or in any other manner, as may be determined and the association of allottees shall have the first right of refusal for carrying out the remaining development work is the wholesome provision contained in the second proviso to section 8. To claim compensation is at the option of the allottee if the allottee wants to go out. That is an additional right, not the only right conferred under the RERA. He cannot be left in lurch but is entitled to claim the refund if he so desires. It is his option to claim the refund along with interest and compensation which is to be determined under the RERA. The rights of the allottees are not restricted to only receiving the compensation as submitted. The submission is too tenuous to be accepted.

137. A submission has also been raised that the RERA recognises and protects interests of the lenders and does not in any manner take away rights under any of the existing statutes such as T.P. Act, Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, SARFAESI Act. It is apparent from a perusal of RERA, which is a special Act, that certain rights have been created in favour of the buyers. The provisions of RERA have to prevail. When we come to the question of protection of rights of buyers even if RERA had not been enacted, under aforesaid laws in the facts of the case, a different view could not have been taken. However, there is no dispute that the bankers would have the right to recover their dues from whom and in what manner is the question which we have already answered. The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation due to undue delay in completion of the project.

138. It was submitted by learned senior counsel on behalf of the Greater Noida authority that title has to pass in home buyers by way of registered document as provided in section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and section 13 of the U.P. Apartments Act, 2010 and also the provisions of the lease deed. The deed of transfer will be a tripartite sub-lease deed. Completion certificate has to be obtained, for that it has to be applied for. Dues of the authorities have to be paid before a completion certificate is issued. The charge of Noida and Greater Noida authority has priority over other charges. None of the aforesaid submissions impress us so as to defeat the rights of home buyers. We have already dealt with that the dues have to be recovered in accordance with law from the properties which have been created by the funds which have been diverted and the property of the directors etc. In order to do complete justice between the parties so that the faith of public is not shaken in the real estate sector and such frauds are prevented in the future. We cannot permit the authorities in the facts and circumstances of the case to deal with the rights of the home buyers in arbitrary and in an unjust manner.

139. In case the authorities are making allotment of plots at a paltry sum of 10% and giving the builders 8 years period to make payment of premium with a moratorium of 2 years then the period runs to 10 years and the project is to be completed within 3 years. It is clear that the authorities have to be very vigilant for securing their interests otherwise in every case even if the promoter has completed the project and realised the charges from the home buyers and has not deposited the amount due to the authorities, in case no action is taken by the Authorities, can it be taken after 10 years against home buyers. The question arises whether innocent home buyers would have to pay the amount to authorities which they have already paid to promoters as part of the component of cost of flats or plots as the case may be, whether they are to be saddled once over again with the liability to pay, though the amount paid by them has been illegally usurped and diverted elsewhere and not paid to the authorities and they have acted in connivance of officials.

The authorities have to be vigilant in such cases and not to tolerate the default. They have to blame themselves for their inaction and have to wait for the realisation of dues by sale of other properties and as against guarantors etc. The projects have to be completed as mandated by Section 8 of RERA

140. It was submitted that the authorities on cancellation of the lease have to forfeit 25% of the amount and have to resume the lands along with the structure. It cannot be done in view of the provisions of RERA, particularly in view of the provisions of section 8 and other beneficial provisions contained in the said Act. Under section 14 of the Act of 1976, there can be forfeiture of the entire amount also, in case of breach of condition or breach of rules, etc. by the promoters/ builders.

Be that as it may. We hold and direct no action under any provisions derogatory to the interest of home buyers can be taken either by the authorities or the bankers in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that is to say, that no part of the building can be demolished. Buildings have to come up and completed even the ones which are at the nascent stage as mandated by RERA. No doubt about it that in case of failure to pay the dues the onus of payment of land dues has to be passed on to the buyers on pro-rata basis but in the instant case they have already paid the substantial amounts, huge amount has been permitted to be diverted by the authorities and bankers as such they have to wait for recovery and cannot act in a manner further detrimental to the interests of the home buyers.

141. On behalf of Amrapali group, learned senior counsel submitted that there were force majeure conditions in completing the projects. There were legal impediments in the completion of projects within the period given in the flat-buyers agreement during the period from 2011-15. The submission is baseless. It is apparent that the Full Bench of the High Court though held that the land acquisition was vitiated but still it was upheld. The High Court did not quash it for the reason that development has taken place. Higher compensation was ordered to be paid. That order was affirmed by this Court in 2015 in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 21.

There was no interim stay granted by the High Court on construction work, is made clear by the Noida and Greater Noida authorities. There was no room to entertain any doubt as to the fact whether for a particular village the acquisition had been quashed. There was no quashing of land acquisition and moreover, there was no stay. Only higher compensation was ordered to be paid. There was no force majeure 259 condition or any legal impediment as such the period from 2011 to 2015 cannot be treated as a moratorium period vis--vis the dues of Noida and Greater Noida authorities. The submission made as to the farmers' agitation etc. is too vague and 30% of the projects have come up; whereas 70% have not yet come up, out of the projects in Noida and Greater Noida alone. It goes to indicate how at large-scale middle-class home buyers have been defrauded of their hard-earned money, taken away by the affluents and the officials in connivance with each other. Law has to book all of them. We are hopeful that law will spread its tentacular octave to catch all culprits responsible for such kind of fraud causing deprivation to home buyers.

It is shocking and surprising that so many projects have remained incomplete. Several lakhs of home buyers have been cheated. As if there is no machinery of law left to take care of such situation and no fear left with the promoters/builders that such acts are not perceivable in a civilised society. Accountability is must on the part of everybody, every institution and in every activity. We fail to understand the standard of observance of the duties by public authorities has gone so down that such frauds take place openly, blatantly, and whatever legal rights exist only on papers and people can be cheated on such wide scale openly, brazenly and with the knowledge of all concerned. There is duty enjoined under the RERA, there has to be a Central Advisory Council as well as the role of the State Government is not ousted in order to protect against such frauds.

We direct the Central Government and the State Government to take appropriate steps on the time-bound basis to do the needful, all other such 260 cases where the projects have remained incomplete and home buyers have been cheated in an aforesaid manner, it should be ensured that they are provided houses. The home buyers cannot be made to suffer when we are governed by law and have protective machinery. Question is of will power to extend the clutches of law to do the needful. We hope and trust that hope and expectation of home buyers are not going to be belied.

142. We are not impressed by the submission that Amrapali Group had taken the lands and had paid a part of dues and has invested a certain amount. The statement of the expenditure of the money of the home buyers, in the construction activity that has been filed in the Court, is not supported by documents and is prima facie a scrap of paper. We have called the concerned incumbents who have prepared it and cross-checked from them and we are satisfied that the statement filed on the expenditure of Rs.10,000 crores is nothing but a scrap of paper not supported by the books of account, supporting documents. It has to be outrightly rejected as there is an attempt made on siphoning off, apparent from the report of the Forensic Auditors also.

143. In his affidavit, Anil Kumar Sharma has given details of companies from which funds were transferred to the extent of Rs.2,996.20 crores to different group companies, mainly from following nine companies:

CHART "E" DETAILS OF MAJOR COMPANIES FROM WHERE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED IN THE FORM OF ICD AND SHARE CAPITAL AS PER BALANCE SHEET TILL 2015 Consolidated Amount Transferred from Amrapali Group till 31st March 2015

S. No.

Name of Companies Net amount Transmitted/ Transferred from these companies of Amrapali Group of Companies (A)

Amount in Cr,

1

Amrapali Smart City Dev. Pvt. Ltd.

538.59

2

Amrapali Centurian Park Pvt. Ltd.

518.78

3

Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd.

445.33

4

Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd.

431.11

5

Amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd.

391.57

6

Amrapali Leisure Valley Dev. Pvt. Ltd.

237.53

7

Amrapali Zodiac Dev. Pvt. Ltd.

224.47

8

Amrapali Princely Estate Pvt. Ltd.

186.99

9

Amrapali Sapphire Dev. Pvt. Ltd.

21.84

Grand Total

 

2,996.20

The diversion of huge amount has been rightly detected on Forensic Audit.

144. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Amrapali Group also submitted that the under-valued transactions have been found of INR 321.31 crores which is incorrect. The Forensic Auditors have given the details in their report along with reasons, we agree with them and have no hesitation to reject the submission.

145. As to other amounts with respect to advances which are recoverable, the explanation that there is a surrender of shares by Mr. Shiv Priya, etc. is not supported by books of accounts. There is no basis to contend so. No proper explanation has been given on behalf of Amrapali Group. Shares were purchased by Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma in his own name. It was clearly an advance. It was not purchased in the name of the company but in the individual's name. There was cash in hand and other recoverable also, no proper explanation has been offered. Cash in hand has to be deposited back as it belongs to home buyers. The finding as to the diversion of home buyers' funds is based on the figures worked on the basis of minute accounting as reflected in the auditors' report.

There is no proper answer to each and every entry which have been gone into by the Auditors. General and broad submissions have been made which are flimsy and have no legs to stand. Thus, the objections are rejected. The professional fee could not have been realised by the Directors. They were not the employees. They have not rendered any professional services. They along with other employees, statutory auditors, CFO, etc. have formed a cartel to defraud the home buyers for siphoning off their money. Dummy companies were created in the names of peons, boys of office, the relation of statutory auditor, CFO, etc. and several companies were created only for the purpose of few transactions.

The fact discloses how the fraud has been perpetrated upon the home buyers which defies description which could not have been unearthed except by skilful exercise done by the Forensic Auditors. Thus, we have no word to specify the extent of fraud played. Least said is better as to the entire gamut of the facts and entire scenario of the case.

146. It is apparent from the report of the forensic audit submitted by Forensic Auditors that there is a serious kind of fraud played upon the buyers in active connivance with the officials of the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities and that of the banks. The money of the home buyers has been diverted. The Directors diverted the money by the creation of dummy companies, realizing professional fees, creating bogus bills, selling flats at undervalue price, payment of excessive brokerage, etc. They have obtained investment from J.P. Morgan in violation of FEMA and FDI norms. The shares were overvalued for making payment to J.P. Morgan. It was adopted as a device for siphoning off the money of the home buyers to foreign countries. In view of the huge money collected from the buyers and comparable investments made in the projects, there was no necessity to obtain a loan from banks.

The amount so obtained was not used in the projects. The mortgage deeds in favour of the banks were not permissible due to non-payment of dues of the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities. The Noida and Greater Noida Authorities issued conditional NOCs. to create mortgages subject to payment of dues which were not paid. They issued such NOCs in collusion with builders. It was incumbent upon the bankers also to obtain clear unconditional NOCs. which were not obtained and to ensure that the dues were paid to Noida and Greater Noida authorities. They permitted diversion of money immediately after sanctioning of the loan and also in day to day transactions of Amrapali group of companies.

147. No accounts were prepared w.e.f. the years 2015-2018 and money withdrawn was diverted during the said period. The Statutory Auditor, Mr.Mittal failed in duty and was part of fraudulent activities as found in the Forensic Report. The money obtained from banks was diverted to unapproved uses such as for the creation of personal assets of Directors, creation of assets in closely held companies by the Directors along with their partners and relatives, for personal expenses of Directors, to give advances without carrying interest for several years. There was total nonmonitoring by the bankers. The money laundering was resorted to by Amrapali Group/ Directors.

The Noida and Greater Noida Authorities were grossly negligent in reviewing and monitoring the progress of the projects and in collusion with leaseholders failed to take action concerning nonpayment of dues and illegally permitted the group to sub-lease the land without payment of dues. Bogus allotments of flats were made. There were other irregularities galore.

148. Because of their failure to fulfil the obligations towards the buyers and the serious kind of fraud which has been played by them upon the home buyers, the registration of Amrapali group of companies under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 deserves to be cancelled.

149. Because of the gross violations of the conditions of lease deeds executed by the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities in favour of Amrapali group of companies with respect to various projects, are liable to be cancelled and the rights thereupon shall vest in the Court Receiver.

150. There was no valid mortgage created in favour of Banks and there was a huge diversion of money paid by homebuyers which were more than required for payment of dues of the Noida/ Greater Noida Authorities and banks. The buyers have paid the dues of Noida and Greater Noida authorities as a component of the price for flats. Thus, the premium and other dues payable under the lease deeds to the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities, cannot be recovered from the home buyers or the projects in question. The dues as may be ordered shall be recovered by sale of other properties which have been created by the diversion of funds and have been attached by this Court.

The banks have also failed to ensure that the money was used in the projects. As found in the forensic audit, there was no necessity of obtaining loans from the banks and it has not been used for the purpose it was obtained. The Authorities and Bankers have violated the doctrine of public trust and their officials, unfortunately, acted in collusion with builders. The dues of the banks are also to be recovered from the other attached properties as observed by us.

151. The criminal cases have also been registered by the police, we propose to monitor the progress of the investigation. For violations of FEMA and FDI norms, we direct the Enforcement Directorate to make 266 investigation in accordance with the law and submit reports quarterly to this Court. Money laundering aspect is also to be looked into by concerned authorities.

152. It has been found in the Forensic Audit Report that there are several recoverable from various companies as well as from individuals, Directors and other incumbents. We direct that as per the findings recorded by the Forensic Auditors, the money be deposited in this Court on a time-bound basis and other needful be done as observed by the Auditors. As we have approved the report, let the concerned companies/ Directors/ individuals take steps in compliance with the observations and findings made by Auditors to refund the amount and or to do needful as suggested within one month.

153. We have also found that non-payment of dues of the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities and the banks cannot come in the way of occupation of flats by home buyers as money of home buyers has been diverted due to the inaction of Officials of Noida/ Greater Noida Authorities. They cannot sell the buildings or demolish them nor can enforce the charge against homebuyers/ leased land/ projects in the facts of the case. Similarly, the banks cannot recover money from projects as it has not been invested in projects. Homebuyers money has been diverted fraudulently, thus, fraud cannot be perpetuated against them by selling the flats and depriving them of hard-earned money and savings of entire life.

They cannot be cheated once over again by sale of the projects raised by their funds. The Noida and Greater Noida Authorities have to issue the Completion/ Part Completion Certificate, as the case may be, to execute tripartite agreement and registered deeds in favour of the buyers on partcompletion or completion of the buildings, as the case may be or where the inhabitants are residing, within a period of one month.

154. Resultantly, we order as follows:

(i) The registration of Amrapali Group of Companies under RERA shall stand cancelled;

(ii) The various lease deeds granted in favour of Amrapali Group of Companies by Noida and Greater Noida Authorities for projects in question stand cancelled and rights henceforth, to vest in Court Receiver;

(iii) We hold that Noida and Greater Noida Authorities shall have no right to sell the flats of the home buyers or the land leased out for the realization of their dues. Their dues shall have to be recovered from the sale of other properties which have been attached. The direction holds good for the recovery of the dues of the various Banks also.

(iv) We have appointed the NBCC to complete the various projects and hand over the possession to the buyers. The percentage of commission of NBCC is fixed at 8 percent.

(v) The home buyers are directed to deposit the outstanding amount under the Agreement entered with the promoters within

3 months from today in the Bank account opened in UCO Bank in the Branch of this Court. The amount deposited by them shall be invested in the fixed deposit to be disbursed under the order of this Court on phase-wise completion of the projects/work by the NBCC.

(vi) In view of the finding recorded by the Forensic Auditors and fraud unearthed, indicating prima facie violation of the FEMA and other fraudulent activities, money laundering, we direct Enforcement Directorate and concerned authorities to investigate and fix liability on persons responsible for such violation and submit the progress report in the Court and let the police also submit the report of the investigation made by them so far.

(vii) We direct the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to initiate the appropriate disciplinary action against Mr. Anil Mittal, CA for his conduct as reflected in various transactions and the findings recorded in the order and his overall conduct as found on Forensic Audit. Let appropriate proceedings are initiated and concluded as early as possible within 6 months and a report of action taken to be submitted to this Court.

(viii) We direct various Companies/ Directors and other incumbents in whose hands money of the home buyers is available as per the report of Forensic Auditors, to deposit the same in the Court within one month from today and to do the needful in the 269 manner as observed. The last opportunity of one month is granted to deposit the amount and to do the needful failing which appropriate action shall be taken against them.

(ix) Concerned Ministry of Central Government, as well as the State Government and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, are directed to ensure that appropriate action is taken as against leaseholders concerning such similar projects at Noida and Greater Noida and other places in various States, where projects have not been completed. They are further directed to ensure that projects are completed in a time-bound manner as contemplated in RERA and home buyers are not defrauded. (x) We appoint Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Advocate, as the Court Receiver. The right of the lessee shall vest in the Court Receiver and he shall execute through authorized person on his behalf, the tripartite agreement and do all other acts as may be necessary and also to ensure that title is passed on to home buyers and possession is handed over to them.

(xi) We also direct Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to execute the tripartite agreement within one month concerning the projects where homebuyers are residing and issue completion certificate notwithstanding that the dues are to be recovered under this order by the sale of the other attached properties. Registered conveyance deed shall also be executed in favour of homebuyers, they are to be placed in the possession and they shall continue to do so in future on completion of projects or in part as the case may be. We direct the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to take appropriate action to do the needful in the matter. The Water Works Department of the concerned area and the Electricity Supplier are directed to provide the connections for water and electricity to home buyers forthwith.

155. Let the cases be listed for further hearing before us on 9.8.2019

...........................J. (Arun Mishra)

...........................J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

July 23, 2019;

New Delhi.


Latest Supreme Court Judgments Back



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys