LR 25 : THREE THINGS WE SHOULD DO TO TEACH LESSON TO THE BUILDER

 So far we have been only seeking justice for ourselves without being aggressive on the builder. We have allowed builder to go tower-wise with innocent and unaware buyers , while ourselves, parallelly pursuing our case in SC. We have not raised the point in court how only 632 units are remaining unsold and all remain are sold. We have not checked whether 632 units really make 19.75% of they are somewhat short of 19.75%.

But now since the builder is trying to put obstacles in our way and trying to complicate and divert the case, it is our foremost job to silent him ,by pressing his weak nerves.

What exactly should we  do .Let me elaborate

1. First action is to  ask builder to disclose his unsold units: When forensic auditors discovered that Stunning construction who is a self-declared unit of Amrapali ( figuring in the list of 40 projects declared by Amrapali),has 19.75% share in LR project, LR was told to surrender 19.75% of their assets.

Now LR got alert that some day or the other, it will also come to light that not only Stunning but the entire LR is a part of Amrapali. So they declared that all their( Non-Stunning) units have already been sold.They knew well that even if LR is detected as Amrapali part, SC cannot auction the units already sold to some buyer.

But SC has written in their judgement that Amrapali had a system of creating fake buyers which at many places has been detected in forensic audit.

Now we have to insist for a thorough digging up the issue and discover all the unsold flats which LR is hiding for fear of being auctioned. 

This job is not difficult for a forensic auditor. They will ask for the name ,address , PAN no. and income details of all such buyers. The fake buyers would be low income employees like drivers, caretakers etc who don't have the capacity to buy a flat. Also, they would not be able to show the demand letter, bank loan sanction, payment of instalments, registered agreements etc.

If we are able to do this, the money collected from sale of these unsold units would be used in construction of our incomplete flats.

Another advantage will be loss of faith of Tower wise buyers who are supporting the builders. Once the property is auctioned, it will not be used in Tower-wise scheme.

2.Second thing which we should do is to make a plinth area wise list of 632 flats and to verify whether the total plinth area of 632 flats is equal to 19.75% plinth area  of  the total project.

You can ask me, Why I am in doubt, if 19.75% of  3200 is equal to 632.Amrapali has total 3200 units ,is a recorded fact.

I am in doubt because all flats are not of equal size some are 880 sq ft some are 1010 sq ft some are 1085 some are 1500-1900. So if you really want to separate out 19.75%, you cannot pick small size flats and complete the number as 632.

 Since the list of 632 units  is available I will request some member to do this exercise. Rameshji may kindly decide who can do this exercise happily and willingly . If  by this exercise it is found that what LR has given to SC is lesser than 19.75% we will report this matter in SC . This will prompt SC to make a thorough audit which is our aim.


3. Third action required is to demand a ban on tower  wise construction.

  • Ban is required because it is a partiality with those who want that the original BBA be followed. 
  • Ban is required  because it is a blackmail ( if you pay advance instalment, your work would be done otherwise not).
  • Ban is required because work is being done without testing the structural stability of the structure remained exposed to weather for 5 years.
  • Ban is required because the builder first  collected advance undue money from the buyers and now when his turn came to add his part, he is asking for reversal of court order dated 23-7-2017 so that he can arrange money by selling 632 units ( which he was free to sell prior to 23-7-2017 but did not sell).

Finally, when to do this action? Let the advocate decide this.

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