Re: [Kumar Picasso Society] Re: Minutes of Jul 14, '13 GBM

[Amrit S]

Thanks Himanshu for dropping this email, I also endorse your view point  that there should be a discussion/debate among Kumar Picasso residents to understand the implications of forthcoming 24th August's meeting with Kewal Jain to find out answers of common issues like :

1) Whether Conveyance deed can be obtained for the KP society without resolving backside corner plot's dispute?

2) What will be the status of our society without conveyance deed and who be benefited from that status? 

3) Why "SadeyStranali Gram Panchayat " is not accepting/demanding property tax from Bungalow residents?

4) What will be the implication of Bombay high court ruling on us? which says uniform maintenance charges should be collected in the housing society,

5) What obligation PMC/builder has for societies for their water requirements? whether PMC will provide only drinking water or total water consumption of the society? 

6) Whether PMC will accept society without Sewage Treatment Plant?

7) The revised maintenance charges has been imposed on residents! whether we get improvement in services? or this increment is only to prevent further degradation of service ?

There were two thefts in society ( one recently in  the last week). What step has been taken after earlier theft so that recent one could have been prevented? 

 I may not have answers for these common concerns but we need to go to expert to find exact implications. 

Fortunately I come across recording of NDTV program about conveyance deed  , hope this will help you as it has helped me.

 ( please fast forward to 16.30 minute to watch conveyance deed section of the discussion).

Regards

Amrit

Note : If you need clarification or detail please send email directly as i am not part of email group.

 

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, himanshu shah <him...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Picasso family,

Are we planning to meet on 15th August or next weekend (whichever is feasible)...before we meet KP (Kumar Properties) associates on 24th August (as we discussed in out last meeting)?

If yes, then kindly circulate the dates in advance so that we can have maximum residents.

The agenda of the meeting will be 

a) Who will represent society while discussing with builder / stake holder / Kumar Properties

b) Finalizing on the points to be discussed on 24th August

Thanks,

Himanshu Shah

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM, amitshukla.s <amitsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

Entire scenario was confusing and in mess:

-We have no confirmation in terms of permanent source of water and we were discussing RO installation and its effects on maintenance cost.

-Maintenance of Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft includes what. Adhoc committee have confirmed that RO installation will not effect the maintenance cost so whether builder is bearing the cost of RO maintenance

-We have already passed on 10th Feb 13 meeting about hiring  a lawyer and we were discussing the law and every one have their own understanding and version and overall confusion prevails in the meeting. Why are going ahead without any expert advice when it was passed on 10th Feb meeting.

-We have pushed society formation in last 5 months and it is proposed for 3rd August when our boundaries are not secured and hell lot of issues are pending

-One of the Adhoc committee was claiming that Adhoc committee is desolved and transparency is not maintained by them so who is representing us

-Answer of every question was read the email

-Builder will hand-over the society to us with all the pending issue he may attach a promise to it and we have no option available other than taking the society in our hands. So what we were doing till date. Output is hardly anything for all the efforts and meeting happened till date.

Are we misleaded?

My recommendation is hire a lawyer and sit together and decide the action plan for 3rd August 2013 or else we will not be able to ensure our interest. It's really important to be on the same page on 3rd August 2013. If Adhoc committee can share the list of the issues they were pushing till date so that we can add to it. Also we need to prioritize the issues. Who will lead the meeting on 3rd August 2013? 

If issues are not resolved before 3rd August 2013 then I am not in favor of society formation.

Also the last point in  the attached MOM of 14th July is not correct and biased. Kindly avoid such description in MOM.

Regards,

Amit Shukla

 

On Monday, 15 July 2013 09:22:25 UTC+5:30, yesheen.vibhakar wrote:

Dear KP family,

 

Please go through the draft minutes. In case additions/ deletions/ modifications are needed - please strike through the portions that should be removed/ rephrased and state the alternate portion. Request the same to be done by Tue, Jul 16 mid night. Thereafter I will enter the data in the format for record.

 

Best,

Yesheen

 

 

 

The following points were discussed and Agreed upon:

# Subject 1: Points to be taken up with the builder

# Agreement 1: All members will go through the emails and mention points that are currently not mentioned and should be included in the list of pending Items submitted to the builder. These points will be sent latest to Yesheen Vibhakar’s mail account by Mon, Jul 15 late night

 

# Subject 2: Society registration to Formation process

# Agreement 2: It was resolved to continue persisting the builder to validate and/ or modify the document sent to them on the Society registration to Conveyance deed transfer process clarity

 

# Subject 3: Commitments made by builder to earlier committees

# Agreement 3: Sanjay Chandrani agreed to take the lead to provide documents stating earlier commitments (by previous Ad hoc Committee) by builder to the Society and vice versa

 

# Subject 4: Society Accounts (expenses) Verification

# Agreement 4: It was agreed to request a practising Chartered Accountant go through the records submitted and queries raised. It was clarified that there are two box files at the builder’s office which are open for inspection. There are two practising Chartered accountants whose names were suggested (Ms Lily Shukla and Ms Shilpa Vyas). Sanjeev Thacker (also a CA, but not practising) offered to contribute   

 

# Sub 5: Common stand prior to meeting Builder

# Res 5: Himanshu Shah proposed that all members should meet once again the Sunday before the appointed date of Society formation whereby all are on the same page

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kumar Picasso Society" group.
To post to this group, send email to kumar-pica...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/kumar-picasso-society.
 
 

[H Krishnan]

Hi Amrit,

Note : If you need clarification or detail please send email directly as i am not part of email group.

I sent invite 3 times to everyone including you. I also sent a mail to everyone requesting to accept the invite. Anyway, I have resent the invite to you. Kindly accept it. I'll resend the outstanding invitations to the others as well again.

Regards,

[Amrit Dhanju]

Hi Himanshu,

Any update whether residents took legal advice? I anticipate nothing has moved on this front like earlier! It would have helped residents to know legally where they are standing?

 

Try to find answers of following, hope this will give everyone some perspective and focus area.

 

1) Four month conveyance deadline is applicable for all societies (refer NDTV video), then why they are not getting title transfer their name? Are we luckier than those all? Whether Legal expert's opinion would have beneficial?

 

2) Whether we can refuse taking-over society?  Who has asked builder to form society?

 

3) WTP cost approx. 2 lac and it runs with 30% efficiency (that why we are getting hard water TDS 650+)? Why Kumar Properties is not fixing WTP but ready to install RO which costs 15 Lac?

 

4) Club house is 40% operational! Meditation room, TV room, library children crutch is not operational and residents are asking football ground, what is realistic?

 

5) Even with CCTV camera why our society is not secure? Weather CCTV system is rightly fixed or these are beneficial for few only? When builder has agreed for additional CCTV camera's (3rd Nov meeting with Col Puranik) then who stopped builder? if we had CCTV camera fixed back side of B2 building ,Whether B2 building's security breach could have been avoided? (4-5 thief tried to enter society on 14th night at 2.45 AM ).

 

6) What will be maintenance cost for each unit, 4200 Rs for each unit or less? How we can reduce maintenance cost?

 

Where fault lines are? Whether there are few residents unrealistic in our side?

 

Regards

Amrit

 

Note : If you need clarification or detail please send email directly.

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 8:14 AM, himanshu shah <him...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Amrit,

Thanks for sharing this video, I have gone through the video and it was very much helpful for novice like me

Glimpse

1) In case of regular conveyance or deemed conveyance, title should be transferred to Society

2) Maharashtra govt had started campaign for deemed conveyance and they may start again

3) Response was slow from the society itself - The reason may be lot of documents required which may 

not be available if the society was built before many years

4) Tedious administrative tasks

5) Deemed Conveyance can be done by a competent authority

6) Regular conveyance should be done by builder within 4 months.

Why builder doesn't do that - They have to get benefit by Utilizing FSI or TDR

7) To be Cautious - They may do a lease deed but no conveyance (so have to be cautious)

And also there is a confusion wherein full land will not be transferred like Parking 

Will have to check on the federation body meeting (will check with Amit as not sure on the W/e timings)

You can also provide your availability or contact as you have good base on the conveyance matter

Thanks,

Himanshu Shah