Checkout Budget Highlights 2023Issuing directions in a case filed by Bhaskar Pramanik, former Chairman, Microsoft India, regarding the IREO Gurugram Hills project, a Delhi court instructed the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police to register an FIR against IREO Private Limited and its MD Lalit Goyal.
Pramanik, who has invested Rs 7.15 crore in the project, has alleged that the project, which was launched in 2012, is still incomplete and he is yet to get possession of his flat.
The complainant has alleged that the project, which was launched in 2012, is still not complete and he is yet to get possession of his flat.
According to an order issued by Punit Pahwa, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket court, IREO Pvt Ltd launched the project in 2012. Possession was supposed to be offered within 42 months from the date of the agreement.
The total cost of one unit in the project was Rs 8 crore. Pramanik paid the booking amount of Rs 85 lakh and was allotted a flat in the project. Thereafter, the builder-buyer agreement was also signed by the complainant and accused company.
“Till date, the complainant has made a payment of Rs 7.15 crore to the accused company, but despite making the payment the accused company has failed to offer possession. The project site is in an eco-sensitive zone of the Asola Bhatti wildlife sanctuary, and the licence and environmental clearance (for the project) cannot be granted for this location,” the court order stated.
During the hearing, the complainant alleged that the approval and licences obtained by the company were completely “illegal and forged,” and till date the company had not handed over possession of the allotted unit.
The court further observed that the actions of Goyal and other directors of the company clearly shows that the intention of the accused was “mala fide” right from the beginning, and they had on various occasions “induced the complainant to part with his hard-earned money to unjustly enrich themselves.’’
The court observed that a complaint was made to the DCP (EOW), Crime Branch, Mandir Marg, but no action was taken against the accused.
The court added that complainant had been "cheated" by the IREO and its directors, who, while promising a world class residential space, had made several "misrepresentations".
The court order issued on February 23 said that considering the gravity of the allegations, a police investigation into the matter was required.
"In view of the facts and circumstances, the complaint discloses the commission of cognisable offences for which an FIR (first information report) is warranted," the court order further stated, and directed the EOW to investigate the matter.
The company had applied for an occupation certificate on January 9, 2019, and the same was granted on August 2, 2021. The company had also obtained environmental clearance from the impact assessment authority of Haryana government on June 26, 2013, the court order said, citing the action taken report (ATR) filed by the police.
The site was inspected by the previous investigating officer (IO). It was seen that the unit had been constructed per the builder-buyer agreement (bare shell unit), and that the allottee was sent multiple notices requesting him to take possession of the flat and start the internal work. In view of the above, no cognisable offence was made out and the complaint was closed as being civil in nature, the order stated citing the ATR.
However, the court observed that as per the ATR itself, the construction of the project was not complete, and not all the licences or permissions pertaining to the project had been obtained by the accused.
Therefore, there was “some substance” to Pramanik’s complaint, and also the possibility that there may be other victims who too may have invested their hard-earned money in the project, the court observed in the order.
The developer’s side
When Moneycontrol reached out to Gagan Gandhi, advocate for Ireo Pvt Ltd, instead of offering any comments regarding the matter, he said it would be “contemptuous’’ to report about the court order as his client was not party to the proceedings and investigation into the matter had not yet begun.