LR 4 : court order related to 632 amrapali flats in la Residentia

 I have searched the related order.It is order dated 14-10-2019. After this the next hearing was decided on 2-12-2019.

It runs  31 pages 

The main point is as follows:

We have heard Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing for La Residentia The finding recorded in the judgment delivered by this Court that 632 flats or value of 19.75 per cent of the share has to be recovered from La Residentia. It is also pointed out that some cost of construction has been incurred by the La Residentia while handing over the flats or for selling them that amount has to be paid to La Residentia and the remaining amount has to come to the Amrapali Group. We direct the La Residentia to submit an affidavit how much expenditure has been undertaken in the construction of each of the flat and total amount invested in the construction of 600 flats which are available for sale at present. They are injuncted from selling flats which are available. Let the affidavit be filed within fifteen days.


on page no 2, there is a mention of our IA 


Those who are interested to know the full order can click on the link

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/30157/30157_2017_4_301_17488_Order_14-Oct-2019.pdf


My search continues... 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LR 22 Why do I consider Tower-wise construction as illegal and unethical

  There are 7 reasons for which I consider the Tower-wise construction adopted by La Residentia Developers , as illegal It violates the original agreement's payment  condition which specifies how much money is to be paid at what stage of construction. The buyer under this new arrangement is paying advance instalment of Rs. 2 lakh approx which the builder should treat as a loan and pay interest thereupon.Also bankers who are releasing loan instalment should acknowledge that there cannot be two agreements between the same builder-buyer for the same flat.Those who want a new agreement have to cancel the old one. Bankers have followed original agreements and demand letters as per progress of work as basis for payment. Now , suddenly they are disbursing loan without any work being done. It also makes them unsafe. But the bankers are under influence of builder's money and completely ignoring this basis requirement of security for loan.This violation of agreement should be taken cogn...
Read more

LR 26 : Delay in delivery of reserved order is not a bad sign

    Today I saw another sign of worry and disappointment from one of our members, Shri Deepak Kumar. He expressed his disappointment over delay in delivery of reserved order on La Residentia by the honourable supreme court. I felt that I should express what I know and what I feel so that his worries may be reduced. I have told most of my points earlier also, adding only a few today. Since my old post is lost among a series of other posts, this time I decided to post on blog so as to keep it readily available as and when required or searched . It is a common query of most of   members as to what is happening in supreme court and when will the reserved decision will be delivered.Also, what is the next date. The next date is fixed on 22-3-2021. Since order was reserved on our issue of 8 feb 2021, hearing has been done on 22/2/21,4/3/21 and 5/3/21 dates. As I have already written there are many issues to be resolved, in the Amrapali case. As we all know supreme co...
Read more

LR 24 : How to oppose tower wise proposal in limited time during Supreme court hearing

  Many of our members want that our advocate should be told to strongly oppose the process of tower wise construction. I have also written scattered blogs against tower-wise construction. Here,in short, I am trying to summarize the most significant   points so that our advocate may pick what he feels useful for telling in court 1.        Builder has no financial capacity to complete tower wise construction even if some innocents buyers are ready to give all balance amount in advance. This is evident from the following facts : a.        The payment from buyer side is hardly 10% of the total fund requirement. If claims he can add 90% , where is the money? If there is money why is he requesting SC to lift ban from selling 632 units which he already has admitted that belong to Stunning Construction. In this regard Rameshji has added that prior to 23-7-2017, when all 632 were under him , why did he not try to use the...
Read more