LR 14 : आम्रपाली केस की दिनांक 13082020 की सुनवाई का श्री कुमार मिहिर अधिवक्ता द्वारा विवरण

 courtesy Shri Himanshu Singh

AMRAPALI HEARING DATED 13.08.2020 

 

1. The Court receiver and Mr. Harish Salve, Sr Adv appearing for SBI Caps informed the Court that they had almost agreed for financing the Amrapali projects to the tune of 1050 crs but there were some problems with respect to (a) who will monitor the projects and (b) NBCC was not agreeable to a fixed price contract and whether billing would be done on milestone basis or expenses incurred basis ? Accordingly, they sought some more time to finalise and submit the final proposal. The Court granted them time till next week and asked them to place it before the Court for its consideration on 19.08.2020.  

2. The Court also asked the Solicitor General of India to look into financing of Amrapali Projects by SBI Caps and / or by the Government directly and said that Government must ensure finance for these projects. Court also said that if proposal by SBI Caps is not finalized by next week, it will pass orders for financing these projects independently.   

3. The Court receiver also informed the court that he may be allowed to explore the possibility of some banks forming a consortium and providing project finance to Amrapali projects. The Court allowed the Court receiver to work out the details and place them before the Court.  

4. He informed the Court that MSTC Ltd has prepared the final valuation report of the properties to be auctioned. However, the Committee of Court receiver and auditors was not satisfied with the same and they wanted to rework it. Accordingly, the Court directed them to rework the benchmark prices and suggest to MSTC 

5. The Court also allowed the Court receiver to receive the balance from the buyers of Corporate Hub at IMT Manesar and carry out the Registries therein. The Court directed MSTC to take over and sell the unsold units there and also directed the District Magistrate of Gurgaon to help the Court receiver to carry out registrations.   

6. The Court receiver informed the court that the banks have started negotiations for restructuring the loan accounts and disbursal of loans and he wanted a deadline for the banks to do the same. Counsel for UCO Bank and Corporation Bank informed the Court that they have already given instructions to their branches to disburse the loans and have given a MOU to the Court receiver for restructuring the defaulted loan accounts. The Court asked the Receiver to finalise the same and place it before the court.  

7. Orissa housing board informed the court that it has deposited 34 Cr and has also given advertisement for auction of plot earlier allotted to Amrapali. However, due to Corona, no response was received and they needed more time. Court granted them time till 30.09.2020 to auction the said plot.  

8. Ace group had filed a contempt petition against CEO of Noida and Greater Noida for not providing the details of dues in terms of Orders dated 10.06.2020 & 10.07.2020. Court issued notice and counsel for Noida and Greater Noida informed that the dues will be provided by the next hearing.  

9. Directorate , CGST wanted a copy of Forensic Auditor’s report and EPFO wanted some information. Court directed copy of report to be given to CGST and EPFO has been directed to approach the Receiver.  

10. The Court receiver also informed the Court that the tenders for Heart Beat and Tech Park will be issued shortly.   

11. The matter had now been listed on 19.08.2020  

 

KUMAR MIHIR 

ADVOCATE      

                   

Team NEFOWA  

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