Court orders criminal action against Unitech top bosses

New Delhi: A city

court

has ordered initiation of criminal proceedings against real estate major Unitech Ltd and its top bosses in an alleged

cheating

case lodged by an investor for not giving him timely possession of a

flat

booked in 2006 in Greater Noida.

Unitech Ltd, its chairman Ramesh Chandra, managing directors Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra and four directors — Anil Harish, Minoti Bahri, Ravinder Singhania and Sanjay Bahadur — are named as accused in the complaint. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sandeep Yadav passed the order on June 10 while observing that a case of cheating is made out against them as they had “guilty intention to cheat the petitioner from the beginning”.

The court allowed the revision petition filed by Gurgaon resident Paramvir Singh Narang against an April 13, 2015 order of a magisterial court that had rejected his complaint and refused to initiate proceedings against the corporate honchos.

Setting aside the magisterial court order, the ASJ said, “It is concluded that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South) erred in observing that it is a civil dispute and the petitioner cannot maintain criminal proceeding by alleging cheating. The impugned order suffers from illegality and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated April 13 is set aside. Trial court is directed to proceed against respondents under Section 420 IPC.”

Narang alleged that he had booked a flat in Unitech Cascades at Greater Noida in 2006 for which he had paid Rs 39.07 lakh. The flat was to be handed over by April, 2008, but the company failed to abide by its agreement following which he lodged a complaint.

“Since respondents after receiving total agreement payment of Rs 39.07 lakh neither offered possession of apartment nor refunded the amount with simple interest at 10% per annum, it can be safely concluded that they were having guilty intention to cheat the petitioner from the very beginning of transaction,” the judge said.

“Even the legal notice issued by the complainant to accused persons was not replied. A clear case of cheating is made out against the respondents,“ the court said.