CC - 95 - TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 19TH JULY 2016 ADDRESSED TO AURA PRESIDENT BHALLA
Minoo@Petrofin
Dear Gautam my friend
Gautam Gode says, vide trailing mail, that “builder has been on the “back foot” for close to a decade…..this cricket match is being played in ultra slow motion”?
How about this twist?
Awaiting RSVP from you.
Scroll down for an advance copy (soft) of the communication addressed by me to Aura President.
Minoo
Minoo K Bhagwagar NT-1/303 Eldeco Utopia
Infrastructural and Finance Engineering Consultant Sector 93-A Expressway
Noida 201 304
Tel. + 91 98 110 345 37
Email: mi...@petrofin.com
REF. NO: URWAG/CC-95/AURA/2016/4 Dated: 19th July 2016
To:
Capt Gautam Bhalla,
President Aura (All Utopia Residents Association),
- the duly registered AAO for the Aura Condominium in Sector 93 A Noida –
c/o Camp Office
OL-1/2102, Eldeco Utopia,
Plot No: 003 Sector 93-A Expressway
Noida 201 304 BY REGISTERED POST/HAND DELIVERY
LEGAL NOTICE
On this auspicious day of Guru Purnima, I the undersigned, in his capacity as Convenor of URWAG (Utopia Residents Welfare Action Group) and Complainant C-1 in Consumer Complaint no: CC-95/2009 which is pending final adjudication qua claims of over Rs. 30-40 crores (2009) against defects in “finished” product, and/or deficiencies in housing services, - and now (2016) about to be enlarged through an amendment thereof, for being “short changed” by the Builder/Promoter, to the tune of not less than Rs. 85-150 crores, additionally, due deviations from the first sanction plan etc. etc. – states as hereinafter:
Note:
- Needless to state, and as the records confirm, all such aforesaid claims against EIPL (Party A) arising solely out of any/all existing agreements, that subsist prior to “novation” of all such agreements between EIPL and individual allottees (Party “B”) to AURA (Party “C”),
- And, most important of all, such “novation” having been triggered subsequent to the execution of the HoTo (Handing Over/Taking over) Agreement on 11th April 2016, vide Public Notice dated 16th April 2016 to all apartment owners of the Project in their individual capacity (and thereby vitiating, in letter and spirit, the various provisions of the UP Apartment 2010 Act and the Apartment 2011 Rules that call for a simple transfer by assignment, and NOT transfer by novation”.
- And hence, due to the reasons mentioned herein below, the need to issue this Legal Notice and consequently, also clarify and confirm unequivocally, the current “status”, and the rights and liabilities and obligations – all under the “law” of the land, as laid down by a catena of judgments passed by the apex court of the land, of all stake holders vis-à-vis one another – namely Party “A”, and Party “B”, and Party C to the current disputes that are under adjudication before the Hon’ble Commission;
- - which latter, is further compounded by the fact that, whereas the HoTo Agreement on the 11th day of April 2016, - the same, if read in close conjunction with the subsequent Public Notice dated 16th April 2016 issued by Party “A” to all individual apartment owners (Party “B”), which
- Public Notice - negates the former “agreement” as several provisions and T&C (terms and conditions) in the latter, is/are not only in violation of the rights and privileges of individual apartment owners as enshrined in Section 5 of the UP Apartment 2010 Act and the UP Apartment 2011 Rules,
- And which, collectively, seeks to extinguish, at one stroke of the pen, any/all claims of the “consumer” that are presently under adjudication in court – be it due to the consumer having been short changed consequent to an illegal Order dated 9th December 2015, passed by the Noida Authority in response to the Court Order dated 27th May 2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in WP 32353/2015 filed by Mr Devendra Dutt, the then AURA President and subsequently withdrawn by you, the successor AURA President, for reasons that are already well documented.
Whereas,
A. As per the UP Apartment 2010 Act, it is statutorily mandatory, to form an AAO, when a certain number of flats are occupied, (as was the case with AURA) AND, upon the formation of an Association of Apartment Owners (“AAO” for brevity), for the Builder cum Promoter to transfer “maintenance”, soon thereafter
– which “transfer” in the present instance, should have commenced soon after June 2010/2011 and been consummated by July 2011
– and if not by July 2011, at least soon after March 2013 when, at the hearing of CC-95/2009 before HMJ JM Malik, the then Presiding Member of the Hon’ble Commission, on 15th February 2013, the Builder’s counsel had, given a solemn undertaking for surrender of maintenance as per law.
And yet, it is indeed an admitted fact (as the records will confirm) inter alia, that,
i. It was only on or around 16th April 2016, vide a Public Notice dated 16th April 2016 (sent by email/courier to ALL allottees of each unit at “Eldeco Utopia Housing Complex, Noida), that EIPL, the Builder/Promoter (Party “A”), categorically confirmed (with copy also to AURA President) the physical handing over of the maintenance, operation and management of the common areas common services and common assets of the Group Housing Project on Plot No: 003 in Sector 93-A, Noida,
ii. – and that too, all subject to, and on the express condition, (as confirmed from EIPL’s Public Notice dated 16th April 2016), that all existing Maintenance Agreements, and Electricity Supply Agreements executed by the Builder Company with individual apartment owner(s) shall stand novated in favour of Aura on the terms and conditions contained therein.
NB: Incidentally, as we all know,
a. despite the best of efforts by the then Aura President, Mr Devendra Dutt, EIPL, the Builder/Promoter, shied away from consummating an HoTo (Handing over/Take over) that safeguards adequately the rights and aspirations of the individual’s right to “property” as laid down by law, EIPL, the Builder/Promoter shied away therefrom
b. And, as the communications on the Eldeco Yahoo Forum will confirm, EIPL, the Builder, shrewdly waited for almost a year, till such time as a “favourable” environment was initially created through whipping up strong sentiment by a small but vocal segment of the community (having a predominantly parochial outlook and/or “trojan horses” with vested/conflict of interests)
(i) initially, in favour of the withdrawal of the WP 32353/2015 before the Hon’ble AHC,
(ii) and subsequently ensuring a “safe passage” to consummation on terms that favoured only EIPL,
(iii) and thereafter being assured by those who stood to benefit by the withdrawal of the WP 32353/2015, that the rights and aspirations of the individual’s right to “property” as laid down by law, stand to this day, badly compromised and the balance of “power” was wrested from the “consumer”.
B. And whereas, soon after June 2010/2011 (namely, the formation of Aura) and till on or around 16th April 2016, (namely, the physical transfer of “maintenance”, expressly by novation, vide supra - as distinct from simple transfer by assignment or otherwise), - of all existing Maintenance Agreements, and Electricity Supply Agreements executed by the Builder Company with individual apartment owner(s),
it is indeed a fact (as the records will confirm) that serious disputes have arisen, during the pendency of all such novated agreements but prior to novation, in respect of claims due to defects in finished product and/or deficiencies in housing services and/or due to unfair trade practices – - and including the illegal and arbitrary interpretation of the provisions of all such novated agreements, enhancements of MMC (monthly maintenance charges) from Rs. 1.25 per sq ft of super area (2007), to Rs. 1.50 in October 2008, and in June 2009 to Rs. 1.95 and thereafter again, in October 2010 to Rs. 2.50/2,65 – without the Builder cum Service Provider for “maintenance’ submitting himself to audit and accountability in respect of detailed month to month break down of expenses incurred by him as my/our agent for the supply of such services - and/or being “short changed” by the Builder/Promoter, to the tune of Rs. 85-150 crores additionally due deviations from the first sanction plan (namely, prior to HoTo/novation of all existing agreements.
- And consequent to which, all such disputes are, as on date, admittedly still pending and under final adjudication since May 2011, before the Hon’ble NCDRC in CC-95/2009,
- And arising wherefrom, the Hon’ble Commission has, during the pendency of such agreements, and prior to novation, also passed several interim orders in a consumer Complaint bearing CC-95/2009, that are legally binding, - either as a “liability” and/or “settlement” or otherwise, - on EIPL in respect of all such novated agreements, – namely,
i. By CO (Court Order) of 5th August 2011, the Hon’ble Commission has, in CC-95/2009, directed the Opposite Party No: 1 Company not to give effect to the Notice dated 27th June 2011 (appearing at Pages 1666, 166-A and 1667 of the Application), without creating any equity in favour of the complainants.
ii. By CO (Court Order) of 2nd September 2011, the Hon’ble Commission had, in MA-721/2011 of CC-95/2009, heard Mr. Puri, Senior Counsel appearing for the OP 1 that the order (of 5.8.2011) was passed on the application of the complainants and some 32 others and, therefore, only they have the grievance against the enhancement of maintenance charges and others have no such grievance and they are willingly to pay the maintenance charges at the enhanced rate. Therefore, having considered the respective submissions, the Hon’ble Commission clarified that the above referred order dated 05.08.2011 shall apply to the complainants and 32 others who had filed the application in regard to their grievance about the increase in the maintenance charges and not power back up charges.
iii. BUT by CO (Court Order) of 15th February 2013, the Hon’ble Commission has, after hearing the arguments of both sides in MA- 844/2011 in CC-95/2009, - as well as the mercy plea of Mrs Shikha Mehrish, war widow, filed by her on behalf of her daughter Shuchita Mehrish (EH-2/101) - directed the Opposite Party No: 1 Company to charge the maintenance at Re 1.95 per sq ft, which is the pending one, in which order is yet to be passed, - and thereby ratifying the original CO of 5th August 2011, and setting aside the CO of 2nd September 2011.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
The aforesaid CO of 15th February 2013, has also been accepted by the Opposite Party No: 1 Company for compliance across the board to one and all, vide Letter dated 3rd March 2013 addressed by EIPL to Aura President Mr Devendra Dutt (a copy of which is on record in the Aura secretary files)
iv. By CO (Court Order) of 5th December 2013, the Hon’ble Commission advised to settle the matter themselves out of the court because there appears to be scope for compromise. To come up for 30.9.2014 for compromise or for final arguments.
v. By CO (Court Order) of 4th April 2014, the Hon’ble Commission heard the arguments of the AR for the Complainants in respect of IA 1486/2012 on whether surrender of maintenance by the Builder/Promoter cum OP No: 1 can be consummated without a valid Instrument of Transfer like the DoD (Deed of Declaration) and other documents being made available by the Opposite Party No: 1.
AR’s statements were also recorded, vide CO of 4.4.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Commission; but since similar issues (that are tantamount to the Builders of the NCR Region “short changing” the consumer to the tune of Rs. 10,000- Rs. 15,000 crores) were also being hotly debated at the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court, on that same day, the Hon’ble Commission deemed it fit decide on all such grievances at the time of FINAL Hearing.
vi. By CO (Court Order) of 29th May 2015, the Hon’ble Commission, after hearing the arguments in IA-8819/2014 filed by the Opposite Party No: 3 acting on behalf of OP Company No: 1, has:
“This is an application seeking clarification of the order dated 15.02.2013. In fact, the applicant is seeking upward revision of the maintenance charges fixed by this Commission by way of the aforesaid order, considering clause 3.2 of the maintenance agreement executed between the parties. The representative of the complainants submits that the aforesaid agreement has since expired and the applicants have not furnished any detail of expenses actually incurred by them towards maintenance of the complex.
Considering the aforesaid rival contentions of the parties, it would not be appropriate to take a view one way or the other on this application at this stage. The application, therefore, will be considered alongwith the main complaint itself. In the meanwhile, the payment shall continue to be made in terms of the interim order passed by this Commission on 15.02.2013.
And thereby, ratifying the CO of 15th February 2013, in CC-95/2009, which has to be read in conjunction with CO of 5th August 2011 passed by the Hon’ble Commission whereby the Opposite Party No: 1 Company was directed NOT to demand MMC in excess of Rs. 1.95 per sft of super area – as may be confirmed from the foregoing.
vii. By CO (Court Order) dated 16th October 2015, in IA 16/2012, 3589/2015, 5189/2015, 5245/2015 and 5686/2015 in CC-95/2009, the Hon’ble Commission permitted the complainants to file a “joint together” application under O6 R 17 of the Code of Civil Procedures, so as to make it compliant with Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act – and thereby render the original complaint of June 2009, “maintainable”.
viii. By CO (Court Order) of 25th January 2016 in IA Nos. 5189, 5686, 8088 and 8874 of 2015 in CC-95/2009, the Hon’ble Commission has permitted the complainants to amend the complaint so as to bring it within the purview of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act.
ix. Further, please note that, consequent to CO (Court Order) of 3rd March 2016 in CC-95/2009, the Hon’ble Commission has approved that the Main Original Complaint, with additional documents if any, shall be deemed to have been filed also on behalf of, and/or for the benefit of all those persons who have/share a common interest in the issues raised therein.
IMPORTANT:
C. And whereas, keeping the above in mind, and as may also be confirmed from the records posted by the undersigned in public domain on the Yahoo Forum, the undersigned had, by his Communication no: Urwag/CC-95 (2009)/BoM/2016 dated 26th March 2016 drawn pointed attention, by way of abundant caution, to various important developments and compliances arising from the above which needed special attention to ensure that “surrender of maintenance is as per law – and that Aura does not default in violation of the following court directions, namely:
a. Court Order dated 15th February 2013 passed by the Hon’ble Commission with HMJ JM Malik as Presiding Member
b. as well as to Court Order of 3rd March 2016, passed by the Hon’ble Commission with HMJ VK Jain as Presiding Member,
And yet, it is indeed a fact (as the records will confirm) that AURA has either wilfully or deliberately or otherwise, failed to take due cognisance of the serious disputes that have arisen, during the pendency of all such novated agreements but prior to novation
- be it in respect of claims due to defects in finished product and/or deficiencies in housing services and/or due to unfair trade practices
– - and that, despite innumerable reminders, Aura BoM with you as the President cum CEO, have failed to submit yourself to fullest disclosure in respect of the impugned HoTo Agreement of 11th April 2016, by refusing to share even soft copies of all mutually agreed, “snag list, DoD, etc. and all related annexures (12 nos purportedly) thereof – on the specious plea that if the same is posted in public domain, the same will be “misused”
D. And whereFORE, - all in the context of the very definition of “novation”, by which definition, all such liabilities and/or settlement and/or obligation/duty that has/have arisen from any agreement which has been executed prior to the UP Apartment 2010 Act, or even before the formation of Aura, between Party A (EIPL) and Party B (allottee cum consumer/complainant), and sought to be novated in 2016, to Party C (AURA), - ALL need the consent of Party “B”;
And it is indeed a fact that the consumers cum complaints of CC-95/2009 and including all those who have/share a common interest in the issues raised therein, have NOT signed any tripartite agreements with AURA and EIPL to "Novate" the agreements it has with residents had with EIPL and are therefore not at all legally and contractually bound, despite being members of AURA, by any such unilateral settlement between Party A and Party that, in no certain terms, talks of “novation”, and not just simple transfer or assignment, as per the provisions of the UP Apartment 2010 Act.
NB:
i. Novation transfers both the rights and obligations of the outgoing party to the incoming party, whereas assignment is a transfer of rights only. It is not possible to assign contractual obligations to another party. And EIPL’s “Public Notice” dated 16th April 2016 clearly states “novation” and not “assignment”,
ii. Novation requires the consent of all parties in order for it to be valid (i.e. by way of tripartite agreement). Conversely, a contract may be assigned without consent (unless there is a contractual provision to the contrary).
iii. Novation gives rise to a new agreement on the same terms as the original agreement, with the original agreement being discharged. Once an assignment occurs, the original contract is not extinguished and, consequentially, the assignor will remain bound by any prospective obligations and liabilities under it.
iv. If indeed, as is the case, novation has taken place, subsequent to the signing of the HoTo Agreement of 11th April 2016, and NO tripartite agreement is in place, at the time of “novation”- and this stands confirmed from the date stamp of the public Notice, then, any such previously executed HoTo agreement become invalid.
v. And/but if some in AURA BOM insist that it is a deemed agreement with residents, as per the provisions of the UP Apartment 2010 Act, then AURA has also taken over the multi crore liability of CC-95.
vi. And consequently, also due to the fact that novation has taken place, then charging maintenance at higher than Rs. 1.95 /sq. ft. (or Re 1.25 in case of MA-440 and 441 of 2011 in CC-95/2009) of super area, will be contempt of court.
vii. Furthermore, by EIPL novating agreement to AURA, on 16th April 2016, and after the signing of the HoTo Agreement of 11th April 2016, has EIPL with a masterstroke pitted the residents with each other.
viii. Novation brings with it not just the terms of the agreement but also the assignor, in this case AURA, is bound by the liabilities under it.
ix. The fact that EIPL is transferring the IFMS less dues, even if residents have a dispute with EIPL, to AURA is testament that AURA and EIPL are operating with the spirit of novation.
And therefore, by the very definition of “novation” all such “liabilities” or “directions” that arise from all such court orders, are – even if it be interim orders - also equally binding on AURA as well, and till such time as the superior judiciary does not adjudicate on the matters under dispute.
E. And whereas, it is indeed also a fact that till such time as the matter is pending in court, and a settlement, and/or final adjudication by the Hon’ble Commission of all such disputes arising from any/all such novated agreements, not reached, no party can, without the consent of Party B novate the existing maintenance agreements to Party C, without attracting penal consequences.
And that, furthermore, while the HoTo Agreement purported to have been executed on or around 11th April 2016 can be interpreted as a direct corollary of the provisions of the UP Apartment 2010 Act, the fact that the said Agreement of 11th April 2016 is followed up by a Public Notice dated 16th April 2016, which makes NO mention whatsoever of the said HoTo Agreement of 11th April 2016 any where in the verbiage, - with emphasis only on “novation” of existing agreements, - there is a deliberate and wilful attempt, albeit with the consent of AURA, to scuttle or extinguish or dilute all acclaims arising from the final adjudication of any issue arising from such novated agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, take notice AS FOLLOWS:
1. Keeping the above and the fact that novation has taken place, in mind, I, the undersigned on behalf of and/or for the benefit of all those who have/share common interest in the issued raised in the disputes arising from all such novated agreements, (vide CO of 3rd March 2016 in CC-95/2009) stand committed, in strict compliance with various court directions, and during the pendency of the suit no: CC-95/2009, and/or till such time as the issues therein are not finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Commission, - NOT to pay MMC (monthly maintenance charges) in excess of Rs. 1.95 (or Re 1.25 in case of MA-440 and 441 of 2011 in CC-95/2009) per s ft of super area, - as the same will be violative of the referenced court orders dated 28th May 2015, read in conjunction with CO of 3rd March 2016, and earlier CO of 15.2.13 that ratifies the CO of 5th August 2011.
2. Further, please be also informed that, - because of the deliberate use of the word “novation” in the current context, - any agreement for surrender of maintenance by the Opposite Parties to AURA, if found to be not “as per law”, - all as per the solemn commitment given by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No; 1 Company, at the hearing of 15th February 2013, (vide CO passed by the Hon’ble Presiding Member after hearing both parties to the dispute in respect of such novated agreements) – shall, - during the pendency of the Consumer Complaint no: CC-95/2009, and/or till such time as the issues therein are not finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Commission - be deemed to be NOT at all legally binding.
3. And consequent to the above, even the HoTo agreement that was purportedly executed on 11th April 2016, between Party “A and Party “C”, without the consent of Party “B”, stands legally fractured, as the same does not constitute a legally binding “settlement” between the aggrieved consumers and EIPL, - all as alleged by EIPL the Opposite Party, through its counsel, in their application of May 17, 2016, before the Hon’ble Commission - during the pendency of the suit no: CC-95/2009, and/or till such time as the issues therein are not finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Commission.
NB: In its Application dated 17th May 2016, before the Hon’ble Commission in CC-95/2009, it is stated by EIPL cum OP No: 1 therein, that the CC95 be disposed since EIPL has reached an agreement with Aura. In the same application, Para (9) thereof, states unequivocally that the Agreement dated 11th April 2016, was executed between Eldeco and AURA containing comprehensive terms of settlement and by virtue of which “all disputes or objections were settled”.
The above, it is submitted, contradicts AURA’s admitted position as AURA, on the other hand, diabolically (if EIPL is to be believed) confirms in its mail of 9th June 2016, that enough provisions have been in place to protect the interests of residents. And I quote:
“….all disputes/claims and differences, prior to the Effective date, in relation to the operation, maintenance and management of common areas/common services and facilities,/common assets in the Complex shall be resolved by EIPL at its own costs and consequences”.
Keeping the above in mind, it is reiterated that the Agreement dated 11th April 2016 that was executed between EIPL (Party “A”) and AURA (Party “C”) is not at all legally binding – during the pendency of the final adjudication or the Complaint bearing no: CC-95/2009, and/or till such time as enough provisions have been in place to protect the interests of the “consumer” and all those persons who have.share a common interest in the issues raised therein.
4. And, in the event NON of payment of MMC (Monthly maintenance charges) in excess of Rs. 1.95 per sft of super area, as against Rs. 2.50 or any other enhancement in the future beyond Rs. 1.95, if demanded by you, I, the undersigned on behalf of and/or for the benefit of all those who have/share common interest in the issued raised in the disputes arising from all such novated agreements, (vide CO of 3rd March 2016 in CC-95/2009, caution you NOT to link such alleged “default”, if any, in MMC in excess of Rs. 1.95, with summary and arbitrary and illegal disconnection of any essential service or utilities like electricity (including captive power back up) and related services, as long as all electricity dues are faithfully paid within a fortnight of receipt of such demands for consumption of electricity in the last billing cycle – all as per the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the recent notification by PVVNL to RWAs not to link maintenance with electricity and to use an essential commodity like electricity for third party gains, etc.
5. Likewise, since the claims preferred against the Builder on account of defects in finished product are already covered in the reliefs claimed in the Main/Amended Complaint in CC-95/2009 before the Hon’ble Commission, we, and all those who, as per CO of 3rd March 2016 therein, declared to have/share a common interest in the issues raised therein, shall be exempt, - till during the pendency of the suit no: CC-95/2009, and/or till such time as the issues qua defects in finished product etc. as raised therein, are not finally adjudicated by the Hon’ble Commission – from any/all demands to be incurred for repairs and/or additional maintenance costs (if demanded now or at a later date) for being incurred on any/all infrastructure items that have, (vide the AURA President’s address of “July(1) 2016”), already started showing age, and has/have become “beyond economic recovery” to maintain, and need to be replaced in a phased manner
– be it due to chronic seepage or other causes that are directly attributable due to substandard materials, under design or poor workmanship and absence of sound accepted practices, deployed by the Builder cum OP at the time of construction and commissioning,
– and all of which confirm what has already been assessed and valued and recorded, as early as in June 2009, by Prof Anil Laul, the Architect who filed the “Architect’s Report” in July 2009 in pursuance to the directions by HMJ KS Gupta, the then Presiding Member of the Hon’ble Commission at the pre-admittance hearing on 30th June 2009!
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this Legal Notice, and advise, through any authorised representative, action taken within 72 (seventy two) hours from the date of “service” delivered through AURA Secretary and/or AURA Treasurer, or whosoever is available to receive the notice, at the AAO office, (since you Sir, are, so it would appear NOT in camp office).
(A copy of this communication is also being forwarded to the Law Office of M/s Karanjawala and Company, Advocates and Solicitors).
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- MKB (Digitally Signed)
MINOO K BHAGWAGAR
Convenor, URWAG (Utopia Residents Welfare Action Group)
cum C-1 in CC-95/2009 before the Hon’ble NCDRC,
Camp Office:
NT-1/303 Eldeco Utopia
Sector 93-A Expressway Noida 201 304
Tel. + 91 98 110 345 37 Email: mi...@petrofin.com
Advance Copy for information to:
1. M/s HKJ and Associates, Advocates and Solicitors,
Learned Counsel for OP No: 1 to 3 and 5 in CC-95/2009 before the Hon’ble NCDRC
2. Adv A Jha,
Learned Counsel for OP No: 6 in in CC-95/2009 before the Hon’ble NCDRC
3. Adv Vijai Pal Dalmiya,
(Senior Partner, Vaish & Associates),
Chief of AURA Legal Cell,
Camp: OL-2/2101 Olympia
Plot No: 003 in Sector 93-A,
Noida 201 304
Place: Noida, UP
From: Minoo@Petrofin [mailto:mi...@petrofin.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10:27 AM
To: 'Rajiv Dubey' <dubey...@gmail.com>
Cc: eldeco-utopia-s...@yahoogroups.co.in; 'Urwag' <ur...@googlegroups.com>; 'Rajiv Dubey' <dubey...@gmail.com>; 'Dhananjay Chaturvedi' <dhananjay....@gmail.com>; 'Capt. Vikas' <captvi...@yahoo.com>; pawanc...@me.com; Gautam Gode <Gau...@samaracapital.com>; 'SURESH BAKSHI' <sureshb...@gmail.com>; mono...@hotmail.com; 'nareshkumarias' <nareshk...@gmail.com>; 'Vijay Dalmia' <vpda...@gmail.com>; 'Manish Pratik' <Manish...@gmail.com>; deb...@gmail.com; 'Capt Gautam Bhalla' <gautam...@ymail.com>; 'Jitendra Nath' <nath_j...@yahoo.com>; 'Ranjeev Anand' <anand....@gmail.com>; 'Anil Kapur' <mono...@hotmail.com>; 'Mahendra Garg' <garg_...@yahoo.co.in>; 'Mahendra Garg' <garg_...@yahoo.co.in>; gkb5...@yahoo.com; 'Ashish Agrawal' <agraw...@gmail.com>; 'Rishabh Mehrotra' <rishabh...@gmail.com>; 'shyam khosla' <sskh...@hotmail.com>; 'Praveen Sharma' <sharma...@gmail.com>; 'Romi Mathur' <romi....@gmail.com>; 'eldeco-utopia-sector-93a-noida] <eldec' <Jswa...@hotmail.com>; 'Brig Narayan Inder' <indern...@hotmail.com>; 'Anjali Singh' <anjali...@gmail.com>; 'Aman Agarwal (OL-1/2201)' <a...@iifbs.in>; 'Mukesh Aggarwal' <mukesh.a...@gmail.com>; 'Jitendra Nath' <nath_j...@yahoo.com>; 'nareshkumarias' <nareshk...@gmail.com>; ''Chhavi BAJPAI'' <chhavi...@st.com>; 'Vishal Arora' <vishala...@yahoo.com>; bajp...@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [UTOPIA] Re: CC95
Thank you Rajiv.
But, please do pardon my arrogance if I state that you, Sir, are not in touch with the latest developments since October 2015 on CC-95.
Scroll down to the last mail of this communication thread in response to Perry’s trigger mail.
In matters of law, one does not need a crowd of litigants.
I am proud to be in the minority of One.
Since 2011 and till 2016, it is NOT the lone Crusader who is on the back foot.
……but only the Builder who, through deploying senior counsels who, so I am told, demand Rs. 4.00 lakhs per hearing, is using every trick in the rule book, to shield himself, under the garb of specious” technicalities”, to prolong the axe.
Minoo Bhagwagar
Proud to be the Lone Crusader.
From: eldeco-utopia-s...@yahoogroups.co.in [mailto:eldeco-utopia-s...@yahoogroups.co.in] On Behalf Of Rajiv Dubey dubey...@gmail.com [eldeco-utopia-sector-93a-noida]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 9:54 AM
To: eldeco-utopia-s...@yahoogroups.co.in
Cc: Minoo (Petrofin) <mi...@petrofin.com>
Subject: [UTOPIA] Re: CC95
I was never a part of CC95, but I think this whole process started on a good note in year 2009, Minoo ji had good intentions, but then he started focusing on picking on people, maligning everyone who questioned anything, started branding people as "builder's lobby" the moment said anything to the contrary.
As a result, the smart people who could have worked together stayed away from being branded as "Minoo's Men".
On the other hand Minoo ji, caught in labyrinth kept going in circles, aimlessly, without support of good people, who could have made a difference...that's why there is no result!
Regards,
Rajiv
PS: I don't know why kids like Nirman are marked on this chain?
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Gautam Gode <Gau...@samaracapital.com> wrote:
i had pointed this out in 2008/9 when i was asked to sign the complaint - and at first glance i saw it was so poorly framed.
at that time i had mentioned that with this sort of an amateur show the builder with his experienced legal team can easily "ghumaao" us for decades
however, no one paid any heed to meFrom: Praveen Sharma
Sent: 18/07/2016 15:10
To: Minoo (Petrofin)
Cc: eldeco-utopia-s...@yahoogroups.co.in; Urwag; Rajiv Dubey; Dhananjay Chaturvedi; Capt. Vikas; Pawan Chandra; Gautam Gode; SURESH BAKSHI; anil kapur; nareshkumarias; Vijay Dalmia; Mahendra Garg; Gulshan Kumar Bhatia; Ashish Agrawal; Rishabh Mehrotra; shyam khosla; Romi Mathur; eldeco-utopia-sector-93a-noida] <eldec; Brig Narayan Inder; Anjali Singh; Aman Agarwal (OL-1/2201); Mukesh Aggarwal; Jitendra Nath; Chhavi BAJPAI; Vishal Arora; nirmaan bajpai
Subject: Re: CC95ultimately they have a judgement and we don't. anyway, i got this info and thought of sharing it with the group
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Minoo@Petrofin <mi...@petrofin.com> wrote:
Good Question
Refer the next edition of the Pathfinder for the update and chronological history
Scroll down for more.
Any questions? Please feel to ask per return mail.
And I shall be ever willing to oblige.
Minoo
In the meantime, please note that since 3rd March 2016, the Hon’ble Commission has been pleased to expand the benefits and reliefs to include all those other than 37 original complaints, “all those persons who share/have a common interest in the issues raised in the Original/Amended Complaint”.
This is indeed a landmark order especially when EIPL were claiming dismissal of the entire complaint on the grounds that AURA alone have the right to represent the community in respect of their rights over common areas, vide a letter written by Manish Pratik, the then Aura Secretary in November 2015, at the behest of EIPL
2. By way of a teaser, let me update you on the fact that, per Order of 5th April 2016, the original claims of Rs. 30-40 crores (2009 estimates) against the Builder are now anticipated to increase by at least Rs. 85-150 crores, if not more due to the consumer being most grievously “short changed” due to misuse by the OP (Opposite party) of additional FAR without the consent of the allottee for construction of additional flats post the date of 1st sanction.
Incidentally, at the very first pre-admittance hearing in June 2009, the then Presiding Member of the Hon’ble Commission was astute enough to ask us to indicate the deviations if any, from the marketing brochures and/or sanction plans. (And this has come in most useful to us, even though it has taken me 6 years to discover all the deviations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And consequent to my stout appeal to seek summary redressal, the Hon’ble Commission has been pleased to admit “additional” documents through an amendment to the original plaint to enlarge the claim from Rs. 30-40 crores by whatever is deemed necessary on the basis of documents that the Builder has till this day, suppressed, and which we have discovered” through the P.N (Public Notice) of 26th August 2015, issued by Noida Authority in respect of the objections to the final completion plans submitted by EIPL.
Need I say more?
Minoo Bhagwagar
18.7.2016
I am sure that you are smart enough to
From: Praveen Sharma [mailto:sharma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 1:29 PM
To: Minoo (Petrofin) <mi...@petrofin.com>; eldeco-utopia-s...@yahoogroups.co.in
Subject: CC95
minooji
was with a friend in gurgaon and she told me they had a judgement by ncdrc within 9 months. the case is against unitech for E-space gurgaon. wonder why cc95 is taking so many years.
p
__._,_.___
• | • | • | • |
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
Minoo@Petrofin
C’mon Guys!
What is the matter?
Not even a squeak from the usually slick Perry or a one liner shoot-out from the hip by Gautam Gode or from the lip by Dhananjay?
Yes, - If I have waited patiently and silently, for so long, it is NOT for nothing!
All this trauma inflicted on me since October 2015, is well worth the silence.
After all, in points of law, “numbers” don’t matter.
And who knows it better than Adv Dalmiya?
"Sometimes our light goes out but is blown into flame by the “over confidence” and “arrogance” of just one other human being (Gautam Bhalla and/or Dalmiya, in this case?.
I, the lone Crusader, owe my deepest thanks to those who have rekindled this light."
The real fight against those who break the law of the land, is just about to begin.
-- Minoo Bhagwagar
The Lone Crusader
19.7.2016
i.By CO (Court Order) of 5th August 2011, the Hon’ble Commission has, in CC-95/2009, directed the Opposite Party No: 1 Company not to give effect to the Notice dated 27th June 2011 (appearing at Pages 1666, 166-A and 1667 of the Application), without creating any equity in favour of the complainants.
ii.By CO (Court Order) of 2nd September 2011, the Hon’ble Commission had, in MA-721/2011 of CC-95/2009, heard Mr. Puri, Senior Counsel appearing for the OP 1 that the order (of 5.8.2011) was passed on the application of the complainants and some 32 others and, therefore, only they have the grievance against the enhancement of maintenance charges and others have no such grievance and they are willingly to pay the maintenance charges at the enhanced rate. Therefore, having considered the respective submissions, the Hon’ble Commission clarified that the above referred order dated 05.08.2011 shall apply to the complainants and 32 others who had filed the application in regard to their grievance about the increase in the maintenance charges and not power back up charges.
iii.BUT by CO (Court Order) of 15th February 2013, the Hon’ble Commission has, after hearing the arguments of both sides in MA- 844/2011 in CC-95/2009, - as well as the mercy plea of Mrs Shikha Mehrish, war widow, filed by her on behalf of her daughter Shuchita Mehrish (EH-2/101) - directed the Opposite Party No: 1 Company to charge the maintenance at Re 1.95 per sq ft, which is the pending one, in which order is yet to be passed, - and thereby ratifying the original CO of 5th August 2011, and setting aside the CO of 2nd September 2011.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "URWAG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to urwag+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.