[Resolved] Dd City Faridabad — not allocated yet plots | |||
I have booked 200 square yard plot in upcoming project of dd city faridbad in 2006 and deposit rs 2, 95000.00 as initial deposit, four year has already passed and company is not bother to allot plots. There is a market roumer that company is trying to allot flats instead of plots and they are trying to sell the plots in very high rates as everyone know that due to metro and flyover there is huge jump in faridabad real estate company is trying to beefol the investors / persons who applied for plots and invest their hard earned money in search of house. I request all the depositiers to join hands and take legal action aganst this type of culprit companies Was this information helpful? | |||
Aug 13, 2020 Complaint marked as Resolved | |||
 266 Comments | |||
Comments
Thanks Dr Ajit
Guys,
What do you say about point 6 in the court order, which says :
6) There are certain investors who may be interested in alternative plots, if any, in any recognized and duly licensed project of the petitioners or their co-associates. All such investors would have the option to opt for the alternative plot that may be available with the petitioners, but it is clarified that the petitioners will not give any false assurances and the alternative plots, if any, to be offered would be in duly licensed and approved projects. Such investors would be doing so at their own option as alternative to their right of refund with interest, if they so desire.
Chetan
[protected]
Guys,
What do you say about point 6 in the court order, which says :
6) There are certain investors who may be interested in alternative plots, if any, in any recognized and duly licensed project of the petitioners or their co-associates. All such investors would have the option to opt for the alternative plot that may be available with the petitioners, but it is clarified that the petitioners will not give any false assurances and the alternative plots, if any, to be offered would be in duly licensed and approved projects. Such investors would be doing so at their own option as alternative to their right of refund with interest, if they so desire.
Chetan
[protected]
I am an investor of DD city Faridabad project…..
Is it meaning that court cannot do anything for the investor of DD city Faridabad project as DD Group or Gambhir Family has already sold out the land to BPTP or someone else?
or
Is it mean that we can get the refund only which we never wanted?
Why DD group or Gambhir family will say that they have alternative plot available with them or in their other companies name until and unless court compel them to do so? Do anyone has idea that where we can get the alternative plots.
To safeguard the investors, who had invested their hard money as well as opportunity in DD city, Faridabad, sale deal of DD group with BPTP or to whomever DD group has sold the Faridabad project after getting the license should be cancelled and should be allotted to the original investors to only as this was done by fraud and cheating to the investors, DD group cannot sale the land for which he has already taken lot of money from the investors.
And
if they can’t cancel that deal than DD group or Gambhir family should buy plots from the other developers or market in the same area and allot to the investors as they are the only one who have made huge profit on selling the land to other developers at present market value
or
refund of money should not only be with interest rather refund should be at present market value i.e. @ approximately Rs. 25000/- for the Faridabad land investors e.g. if any investor has applied for the plot of 200 sqm @ Rs. 7000 per sqm than he should get his deposit money + Rs. 36, 00, 000( (Rs. 25000-Rs. 7000) X 200 sqm) as a refund so that we can get the plot from the other developer or market and why i am asking this, because the investors who had invested money in DD city if they had bought the plot from other developer in same area like from BPTP in 2005 than there plot value as of now should also be at Rs. 25000 per sqm only. We should understand the view of lot of other investors also who have purchased the plot from market by paying the premium in cash in earlier years after 2005 with a hope that they will get the plot.
So, refund with interest will not just serve the purpose as we have lost the opportunity to buy the plot at the rate of year 2005 because of the trust and the deal with DD group and now we cannot buy the buy the plot with just refund of money with interest, if interest is the only criteria than we are ready to pay the interest on the balance money from 2005, if DD group allot the plots in DD city to us today.
Refund with interest is the PENALTY of approximately Rs. 18, 000/- per sqm to us not on the DD groups, they are not losing anything, with refund of money with interest rather they are making huge profits in Crores or Arabs by selling the project after enjoying our hard earned money for 6 years and it is the easiest way for them, if this practice will be allowed than every contractor will do like this, they will just invest the money of other hard working people and after some time when the property value will be increase they will sell it to other party on huge profit and will offer the just interest to the hard working investor with some excuse.
I am not a lawyer so I don’t know how the lawyer can argue this but this is our view and we want the plot only and hope you will also agree with me on this.
Is it meaning that court cannot do anything for the investor of DD city Faridabad project as DD Group or Gambhir Family has already sold out the land to BPTP or someone else?
or
Is it mean that we can get the refund only which we never wanted?
Why DD group or Gambhir family will say that they have alternative plot available with them or in their other companies name until and unless court compel them to do so? Do anyone has idea that where we can get the alternative plots.
To safeguard the investors, who had invested their hard money as well as opportunity in DD city, Faridabad, sale deal of DD group with BPTP or to whomever DD group has sold the Faridabad project after getting the license should be cancelled and should be allotted to the original investors to only as this was done by fraud and cheating to the investors, DD group cannot sale the land for which he has already taken lot of money from the investors.
And
if they can’t cancel that deal than DD group or Gambhir family should buy plots from the other developers or market in the same area and allot to the investors as they are the only one who have made huge profit on selling the land to other developers at present market value
or
refund of money should not only be with interest rather refund should be at present market value i.e. @ approximately Rs. 25000/- for the Faridabad land investors e.g. if any investor has applied for the plot of 200 sqm @ Rs. 7000 per sqm than he should get his deposit money + Rs. 36, 00, 000( (Rs. 25000-Rs. 7000) X 200 sqm) as a refund so that we can get the plot from the other developer or market and why i am asking this, because the investors who had invested money in DD city if they had bought the plot from other developer in same area like from BPTP in 2005 than there plot value as of now should also be at Rs. 25000 per sqm only. We should understand the view of lot of other investors also who have purchased the plot from market by paying the premium in cash in earlier years after 2005 with a hope that they will get the plot.
So, refund with interest will not just serve the purpose as we have lost the opportunity to buy the plot at the rate of year 2005 because of the trust and the deal with DD group and now we cannot buy the buy the plot with just refund of money with interest, if interest is the only criteria than we are ready to pay the interest on the balance money from 2005, if DD group allot the plots in DD city to us today.
Refund with interest is the PENALTY of approximately Rs. 18, 000/- per sqm to us not on the DD groups, they are not losing anything, with refund of money with interest rather they are making huge profits in Crores or Arabs by selling the project after enjoying our hard earned money for 6 years and it is the easiest way for them, if this practice will be allowed than every contractor will do like this, they will just invest the money of other hard working people and after some time when the property value will be increase they will sell it to other party on huge profit and will offer the just interest to the hard working investor with some excuse.
I am not a lawyer so I don’t know how the lawyer can argue this but this is our view and we want the plot only and hope you will also agree with me on this.
next hearing date
O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!! O BALLE BALLE !!!
Next hearing date 22 dec 2011.
court has cancelled their bail. Again they will go to jail.
the next date of the case in high court was on 22 dec..any updates of it??pls post them...
court has kept the matter for 14 march 2012 there bails have not been rejected its still pending . now even refunds have stopped from the JR . we need to get stay on land if matter is delayed by us we will never be able to get our plot. till march everything will end and we will have to take refund. putting the dd company or gambhir family in jail will not solve our purpose of getting the plots. because criminal court will never order to give plots it can only order jail to the gambhir family that also if the court feels they have committed fraud . and if they go to jail then they will not even refund the money. if we want our plots it is very important to get sale of land canclled by dd city to bptp in civil court not criminal. bec after such a big case the company would have given our land to us if they really had it
can we unite togather to file civil case. All interest persons plese respond.
Do anybody have the contact number of Court commissioner Mr. Bharat Prashar who was appointed by court, I read in judgement that court has directed to give the advertisement in newspaper with court commissioner number, but i did not find the advertisment. I will be very graterful if anyone can give me the contact number of Mr. Bharat Parashar.
main to phasa hoon, aap to bach jaao...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1416/2011
REENA GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Arvind Gaur, Adv. for complainant.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 8
BAIL APPLN. 1417/2011
SANJAY GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Malhotra,
Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and Mr. B. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 9
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2011
KARAN GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
O R D E R
22.12.2011
Crl. M.A. 19766/2011 in Bail Appln. 1416/2011 and Crl. M.A. 19769/2011 in
Bail Appln. 1418/2011
These applications of applicants Reena Gambhir and Karan Gambhir
have been filed seeking withdrawal of their interim bail applications No.
1416/2011 1418/2011 respectively with liberty to file fresh interim bail
applications.
The interim protection were granted to these petitioners subject to
certain terms and conditions which were evolved as part of mechanism with
the consent of their counsel, the counsel for investors, learned APP and
others.
Since most of the terms and conditions have not been complied with
and adhered to by the petitioners and they are now intending to withdraw
their interim bail applications, this court after having heard at length
on all aspects of the case, grant permission to withdraw the
applications, but without any liberty for filing fresh anticipatory bail
applications for the reasons as given below in Bail Appln. 1417/2011.
Bail Appln. 1417/2011 and Crl.M.As. 19796/2011 (for direction), 19878/2011
(for exemption from personal appearance)
In terms of order dated 04.11.2011 followed by the order of
29.11.2011, a mechanism was evolved with the consent of all parties and
certain directions were given for the reasons stated in those orders. It
was despite the fact that APP, all the complainants and investors had
been opposing the bail applications and asking for custodial
interrogation of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order, Shri Bharat
Parashar, Joint Registrar of this Court was appointed as Court
Commissioner and he has submitted his report faulting petitioners on
various counts in making any progress in the mechanism for refund of
money to the investors. In his report the Joint Registrar has
specifically noted that despite repeated oral and written requests, the
petitioners have not deposited any amount after the first deposit of Rs. 5.00 crore which is already exhausted. In fact vide his proceeding dated
1.12.2011, petitioners were instructed to ensure compliance of this
Court?s directions to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 1.00 crore and
other directions relating to the mechanism of refund, but the petitioners
who appeared before the Joint Registrar along with their counsels failed
to do so. He stated that petitioners do not seem to be inclined in
depositing any further amount and hence the mechanism agreed upon for
refund to the investgors cannot possibly function any more.
On the pointing out by learned counsel for the complainants and
APP, some of the terms not complied by the petitioners are noted:
(1) The advertisements which were to be given by the petitioners
in terms of order dated 04.11.2011 were not of the size as agreed and
subsequently as per order of 29.11.2011 also no advertisement, as agreed,
has been given by the petitioners.
(2) Sign boards and hoardings which were to be displayed at
office premises have also not been displayed.
(3) Affidavits, which were to be filed by the petitioners giving
details of their investments etc. with various investors with their dates
of investments etc., as stipulated in clause 8 of order dated 29.11.2011
have also not been given.
(4) The condition to maintain a balance of Rs.1.00 crore in the
account has also not been complied with.
(5) Various irrelevant objections were raised by the petitioners
before the Court Commissioner in making refund to the investors.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners could not deny
or controvert the non-compliance of above terms. It was stated by him
that the money which was to come from some sources could not be received
in time and he states having filed an application being Crl.M.A.
19796/2011 in this regard. Most of the averments which are part of this
application relate to the terms and conditions which formed part of the
aforesaid orders and were conditions of the interim protection against
arrest. However, by filing the aforesaid application, the petitioners
seem to be trying to manipulate the things by bringing FDI related
averments which are apparently extraneous for the consideration in
present proceedings. By filing of this application, the petitioners seem
to be trying to justify non-compliance of terms/conditions or wriggle out
of those and also disputing their liability and attributing the same to
FDI of M/s. Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose
Infracon Ltd. In the given facts, having noted that many of the terms
and conditions remained uncomplied, the conduct of the petitioners post
orders dated 4.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 does not seem to be bona fide. Not
only that, as per the last order, they were directed to be present in
this court in person so as to know their bona fide personally as
different versions were being presented by different counsels
representing them. Despite directions for appearance, they are not
present in person. The application filed by petitioner Sanjay Gambhir vide Crl. M.A. 19878/2011 seeking exemption on the ground that he has
threat to his life, is highly misplaced and untenable. When he was on
protection of this Court and was made to appear in the Court, there could
not be any apprehension of any threat. The learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply for
their non-appearance. This creates further doubt in the bona-fide of the
petitioner?s statements which were made at the time of seeking interim
protection vide orders of 4th and 29th November, 2011. No satisfactory
reason could be given as to non-compliance of the terms, some of which
are noted above. In fact, nothing has been averred or stated to
demonstrate bona fide of the petitioners even at this stage except the
bald statements made that funds could not be received and they are
interested to settle the matter.
On the other hand, the learned APP and the Investigating Officer
also informed that there are large number of complaints still pouring in
after the previous orders. It was specifically stated that earlier,
there were 76 complaints which have now risen to 101, but till date, only
18 of those complainants could be repaid. Of course, in addition to
those 18, some more investors have also got refunds, but that number is
very small. Some investors were also present today in the court stating
that they were issued post-dated cheques by the petitioners, which on
presentation have also been dishonoured. This could not be controverted
or rebutted by the petitioners? counsel.
At this stage, learned APP again strongly maintained that in the
given facts and circumstances and in furtherance of the reasons stated by
her in the earlier application, as mentioned in Para (12) of the order
dated 29th November, 2011, custodial interrogation of the petitioners
was required for proper investigation.
Though the matter had been heard at length and the anticipatory
bail applications of the petitioners could be disposed of on merits but,
keeping in view the fact that the issue regarding the liability of M/s.
Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose Infracon Ltd.,
which though apparently extraneous as noted above, has been raised, for
proper adjudication and in the interest of justice, the APP may file
reply to the said application confined to the aforesaid averments
regarding liability. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sanjay Gambhir also desired a reply in this regard to be filed by the
APP.
Having regard to the entire factual matrix and the conduct of the
petitioners, the fact that till date Sanjay Gambhir has not appeared
before this court and it is not known as to the number of investors and
the amounts invested by them with dates etc. and the amounts refunded and
the circumstances under which FDI came to be involved and the case being
of mass public fraud and cheating, I do not think the petitioners to be
entitled for any further interim protection. In view of the above, the
interim protection granted to petitioner Sanjay Gambhir against arrest is
hereby withdrawn. For all these reasons, there is no reason made out by
other petitioners for grant of liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail applications. The APP may file reply to the aforesaid application
confined to the matter as indicated above within four weeks.
Renotify on 14.3.2012 for final hearing and disposal.
M.L. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1416/2011
REENA GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Arvind Gaur, Adv. for complainant.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 8
BAIL APPLN. 1417/2011
SANJAY GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Malhotra,
Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and Mr. B. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 9
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2011
KARAN GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
O R D E R
22.12.2011
Crl. M.A. 19766/2011 in Bail Appln. 1416/2011 and Crl. M.A. 19769/2011 in
Bail Appln. 1418/2011
These applications of applicants Reena Gambhir and Karan Gambhir
have been filed seeking withdrawal of their interim bail applications No.
1416/2011 1418/2011 respectively with liberty to file fresh interim bail
applications.
The interim protection were granted to these petitioners subject to
certain terms and conditions which were evolved as part of mechanism with
the consent of their counsel, the counsel for investors, learned APP and
others.
Since most of the terms and conditions have not been complied with
and adhered to by the petitioners and they are now intending to withdraw
their interim bail applications, this court after having heard at length
on all aspects of the case, grant permission to withdraw the
applications, but without any liberty for filing fresh anticipatory bail
applications for the reasons as given below in Bail Appln. 1417/2011.
Bail Appln. 1417/2011 and Crl.M.As. 19796/2011 (for direction), 19878/2011
(for exemption from personal appearance)
In terms of order dated 04.11.2011 followed by the order of
29.11.2011, a mechanism was evolved with the consent of all parties and
certain directions were given for the reasons stated in those orders. It
was despite the fact that APP, all the complainants and investors had
been opposing the bail applications and asking for custodial
interrogation of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order, Shri Bharat
Parashar, Joint Registrar of this Court was appointed as Court
Commissioner and he has submitted his report faulting petitioners on
various counts in making any progress in the mechanism for refund of
money to the investors. In his report the Joint Registrar has
specifically noted that despite repeated oral and written requests, the
petitioners have not deposited any amount after the first deposit of Rs. 5.00 crore which is already exhausted. In fact vide his proceeding dated
1.12.2011, petitioners were instructed to ensure compliance of this
Court?s directions to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 1.00 crore and
other directions relating to the mechanism of refund, but the petitioners
who appeared before the Joint Registrar along with their counsels failed
to do so. He stated that petitioners do not seem to be inclined in
depositing any further amount and hence the mechanism agreed upon for
refund to the investgors cannot possibly function any more.
On the pointing out by learned counsel for the complainants and
APP, some of the terms not complied by the petitioners are noted:
(1) The advertisements which were to be given by the petitioners
in terms of order dated 04.11.2011 were not of the size as agreed and
subsequently as per order of 29.11.2011 also no advertisement, as agreed,
has been given by the petitioners.
(2) Sign boards and hoardings which were to be displayed at
office premises have also not been displayed.
(3) Affidavits, which were to be filed by the petitioners giving
details of their investments etc. with various investors with their dates
of investments etc., as stipulated in clause 8 of order dated 29.11.2011
have also not been given.
(4) The condition to maintain a balance of Rs.1.00 crore in the
account has also not been complied with.
(5) Various irrelevant objections were raised by the petitioners
before the Court Commissioner in making refund to the investors.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners could not deny
or controvert the non-compliance of above terms. It was stated by him
that the money which was to come from some sources could not be received
in time and he states having filed an application being Crl.M.A.
19796/2011 in this regard. Most of the averments which are part of this
application relate to the terms and conditions which formed part of the
aforesaid orders and were conditions of the interim protection against
arrest. However, by filing the aforesaid application, the petitioners
seem to be trying to manipulate the things by bringing FDI related
averments which are apparently extraneous for the consideration in
present proceedings. By filing of this application, the petitioners seem
to be trying to justify non-compliance of terms/conditions or wriggle out
of those and also disputing their liability and attributing the same to
FDI of M/s. Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose
Infracon Ltd. In the given facts, having noted that many of the terms
and conditions remained uncomplied, the conduct of the petitioners post
orders dated 4.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 does not seem to be bona fide. Not
only that, as per the last order, they were directed to be present in
this court in person so as to know their bona fide personally as
different versions were being presented by different counsels
representing them. Despite directions for appearance, they are not
present in person. The application filed by petitioner Sanjay Gambhir vide Crl. M.A. 19878/2011 seeking exemption on the ground that he has
threat to his life, is highly misplaced and untenable. When he was on
protection of this Court and was made to appear in the Court, there could
not be any apprehension of any threat. The learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply for
their non-appearance. This creates further doubt in the bona-fide of the
petitioner?s statements which were made at the time of seeking interim
protection vide orders of 4th and 29th November, 2011. No satisfactory
reason could be given as to non-compliance of the terms, some of which
are noted above. In fact, nothing has been averred or stated to
demonstrate bona fide of the petitioners even at this stage except the
bald statements made that funds could not be received and they are
interested to settle the matter.
On the other hand, the learned APP and the Investigating Officer
also informed that there are large number of complaints still pouring in
after the previous orders. It was specifically stated that earlier,
there were 76 complaints which have now risen to 101, but till date, only
18 of those complainants could be repaid. Of course, in addition to
those 18, some more investors have also got refunds, but that number is
very small. Some investors were also present today in the court stating
that they were issued post-dated cheques by the petitioners, which on
presentation have also been dishonoured. This could not be controverted
or rebutted by the petitioners? counsel.
At this stage, learned APP again strongly maintained that in the
given facts and circumstances and in furtherance of the reasons stated by
her in the earlier application, as mentioned in Para (12) of the order
dated 29th November, 2011, custodial interrogation of the petitioners
was required for proper investigation.
Though the matter had been heard at length and the anticipatory
bail applications of the petitioners could be disposed of on merits but,
keeping in view the fact that the issue regarding the liability of M/s.
Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose Infracon Ltd.,
which though apparently extraneous as noted above, has been raised, for
proper adjudication and in the interest of justice, the APP may file
reply to the said application confined to the aforesaid averments
regarding liability. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sanjay Gambhir also desired a reply in this regard to be filed by the
APP.
Having regard to the entire factual matrix and the conduct of the
petitioners, the fact that till date Sanjay Gambhir has not appeared
before this court and it is not known as to the number of investors and
the amounts invested by them with dates etc. and the amounts refunded and
the circumstances under which FDI came to be involved and the case being
of mass public fraud and cheating, I do not think the petitioners to be
entitled for any further interim protection. In view of the above, the
interim protection granted to petitioner Sanjay Gambhir against arrest is
hereby withdrawn. For all these reasons, there is no reason made out by
other petitioners for grant of liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail applications. The APP may file reply to the aforesaid application
confined to the matter as indicated above within four weeks.
Renotify on 14.3.2012 for final hearing and disposal.
M.L. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1416/2011
REENA GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Arvind Gaur, Adv. for complainant.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 8
BAIL APPLN. 1417/2011
SANJAY GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Malhotra,
Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and Mr. B. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 9
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2011
KARAN GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
O R D E R
22.12.2011
Crl. M.A. 19766/2011 in Bail Appln. 1416/2011 and Crl. M.A. 19769/2011 in
Bail Appln. 1418/2011
These applications of applicants Reena Gambhir and Karan Gambhir
have been filed seeking withdrawal of their interim bail applications No.
1416/2011 1418/2011 respectively with liberty to file fresh interim bail
applications.
The interim protection were granted to these petitioners subject to
certain terms and conditions which were evolved as part of mechanism with
the consent of their counsel, the counsel for investors, learned APP and
others.
Since most of the terms and conditions have not been complied with
and adhered to by the petitioners and they are now intending to withdraw
their interim bail applications, this court after having heard at length
on all aspects of the case, grant permission to withdraw the
applications, but without any liberty for filing fresh anticipatory bail
applications for the reasons as given below in Bail Appln. 1417/2011.
Bail Appln. 1417/2011 and Crl.M.As. 19796/2011 (for direction), 19878/2011
(for exemption from personal appearance)
In terms of order dated 04.11.2011 followed by the order of
29.11.2011, a mechanism was evolved with the consent of all parties and
certain directions were given for the reasons stated in those orders. It
was despite the fact that APP, all the complainants and investors had
been opposing the bail applications and asking for custodial
interrogation of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order, Shri Bharat
Parashar, Joint Registrar of this Court was appointed as Court
Commissioner and he has submitted his report faulting petitioners on
various counts in making any progress in the mechanism for refund of
money to the investors. In his report the Joint Registrar has
specifically noted that despite repeated oral and written requests, the
petitioners have not deposited any amount after the first deposit of Rs. 5.00 crore which is already exhausted. In fact vide his proceeding dated
1.12.2011, petitioners were instructed to ensure compliance of this
Court?s directions to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 1.00 crore and
other directions relating to the mechanism of refund, but the petitioners
who appeared before the Joint Registrar along with their counsels failed
to do so. He stated that petitioners do not seem to be inclined in
depositing any further amount and hence the mechanism agreed upon for
refund to the investgors cannot possibly function any more.
On the pointing out by learned counsel for the complainants and
APP, some of the terms not complied by the petitioners are noted:
(1) The advertisements which were to be given by the petitioners
in terms of order dated 04.11.2011 were not of the size as agreed and
subsequently as per order of 29.11.2011 also no advertisement, as agreed,
has been given by the petitioners.
(2) Sign boards and hoardings which were to be displayed at
office premises have also not been displayed.
(3) Affidavits, which were to be filed by the petitioners giving
details of their investments etc. with various investors with their dates
of investments etc., as stipulated in clause 8 of order dated 29.11.2011
have also not been given.
(4) The condition to maintain a balance of Rs.1.00 crore in the
account has also not been complied with.
(5) Various irrelevant objections were raised by the petitioners
before the Court Commissioner in making refund to the investors.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners could not deny
or controvert the non-compliance of above terms. It was stated by him
that the money which was to come from some sources could not be received
in time and he states having filed an application being Crl.M.A.
19796/2011 in this regard. Most of the averments which are part of this
application relate to the terms and conditions which formed part of the
aforesaid orders and were conditions of the interim protection against
arrest. However, by filing the aforesaid application, the petitioners
seem to be trying to manipulate the things by bringing FDI related
averments which are apparently extraneous for the consideration in
present proceedings. By filing of this application, the petitioners seem
to be trying to justify non-compliance of terms/conditions or wriggle out
of those and also disputing their liability and attributing the same to
FDI of M/s. Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose
Infracon Ltd. In the given facts, having noted that many of the terms
and conditions remained uncomplied, the conduct of the petitioners post
orders dated 4.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 does not seem to be bona fide. Not
only that, as per the last order, they were directed to be present in
this court in person so as to know their bona fide personally as
different versions were being presented by different counsels
representing them. Despite directions for appearance, they are not
present in person. The application filed by petitioner Sanjay Gambhir vide Crl. M.A. 19878/2011 seeking exemption on the ground that he has
threat to his life, is highly misplaced and untenable. When he was on
protection of this Court and was made to appear in the Court, there could
not be any apprehension of any threat. The learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply for
their non-appearance. This creates further doubt in the bona-fide of the
petitioner?s statements which were made at the time of seeking interim
protection vide orders of 4th and 29th November, 2011. No satisfactory
reason could be given as to non-compliance of the terms, some of which
are noted above. In fact, nothing has been averred or stated to
demonstrate bona fide of the petitioners even at this stage except the
bald statements made that funds could not be received and they are
interested to settle the matter.
On the other hand, the learned APP and the Investigating Officer
also informed that there are large number of complaints still pouring in
after the previous orders. It was specifically stated that earlier,
there were 76 complaints which have now risen to 101, but till date, only
18 of those complainants could be repaid. Of course, in addition to
those 18, some more investors have also got refunds, but that number is
very small. Some investors were also present today in the court stating
that they were issued post-dated cheques by the petitioners, which on
presentation have also been dishonoured. This could not be controverted
or rebutted by the petitioners? counsel.
At this stage, learned APP again strongly maintained that in the
given facts and circumstances and in furtherance of the reasons stated by
her in the earlier application, as mentioned in Para (12) of the order
dated 29th November, 2011, custodial interrogation of the petitioners
was required for proper investigation.
Though the matter had been heard at length and the anticipatory
bail applications of the petitioners could be disposed of on merits but,
keeping in view the fact that the issue regarding the liability of M/s.
Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose Infracon Ltd.,
which though apparently extraneous as noted above, has been raised, for
proper adjudication and in the interest of justice, the APP may file
reply to the said application confined to the aforesaid averments
regarding liability. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sanjay Gambhir also desired a reply in this regard to be filed by the
APP.
Having regard to the entire factual matrix and the conduct of the
petitioners, the fact that till date Sanjay Gambhir has not appeared
before this court and it is not known as to the number of investors and
the amounts invested by them with dates etc. and the amounts refunded and
the circumstances under which FDI came to be involved and the case being
of mass public fraud and cheating, I do not think the petitioners to be
entitled for any further interim protection. In view of the above, the
interim protection granted to petitioner Sanjay Gambhir against arrest is
hereby withdrawn. For all these reasons, there is no reason made out by
other petitioners for grant of liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail applications. The APP may file reply to the aforesaid application
confined to the matter as indicated above within four weeks.
Renotify on 14.3.2012 for final hearing and disposal.
M.L. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
awanish
BAIL APPLN. 1416/2011
REENA GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Arvind Gaur, Adv. for complainant.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 8
BAIL APPLN. 1417/2011
SANJAY GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Malhotra,
Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and Mr. B. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 9
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2011
KARAN GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
O R D E R
22.12.2011
Crl. M.A. 19766/2011 in Bail Appln. 1416/2011 and Crl. M.A. 19769/2011 in
Bail Appln. 1418/2011
These applications of applicants Reena Gambhir and Karan Gambhir
have been filed seeking withdrawal of their interim bail applications No.
1416/2011 1418/2011 respectively with liberty to file fresh interim bail
applications.
The interim protection were granted to these petitioners subject to
certain terms and conditions which were evolved as part of mechanism with
the consent of their counsel, the counsel for investors, learned APP and
others.
Since most of the terms and conditions have not been complied with
and adhered to by the petitioners and they are now intending to withdraw
their interim bail applications, this court after having heard at length
on all aspects of the case, grant permission to withdraw the
applications, but without any liberty for filing fresh anticipatory bail
applications for the reasons as given below in Bail Appln. 1417/2011.
Bail Appln. 1417/2011 and Crl.M.As. 19796/2011 (for direction), 19878/2011
(for exemption from personal appearance)
In terms of order dated 04.11.2011 followed by the order of
29.11.2011, a mechanism was evolved with the consent of all parties and
certain directions were given for the reasons stated in those orders. It
was despite the fact that APP, all the complainants and investors had
been opposing the bail applications and asking for custodial
interrogation of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order, Shri Bharat
Parashar, Joint Registrar of this Court was appointed as Court
Commissioner and he has submitted his report faulting petitioners on
various counts in making any progress in the mechanism for refund of
money to the investors. In his report the Joint Registrar has
specifically noted that despite repeated oral and written requests, the
petitioners have not deposited any amount after the first deposit of Rs. 5.00 crore which is already exhausted. In fact vide his proceeding dated
1.12.2011, petitioners were instructed to ensure compliance of this
Court?s directions to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 1.00 crore and
other directions relating to the mechanism of refund, but the petitioners
who appeared before the Joint Registrar along with their counsels failed
to do so. He stated that petitioners do not seem to be inclined in
depositing any further amount and hence the mechanism agreed upon for
refund to the investgors cannot possibly function any more.
On the pointing out by learned counsel for the complainants and
APP, some of the terms not complied by the petitioners are noted:
(1) The advertisements which were to be given by the petitioners
in terms of order dated 04.11.2011 were not of the size as agreed and
subsequently as per order of 29.11.2011 also no advertisement, as agreed,
has been given by the petitioners.
(2) Sign boards and hoardings which were to be displayed at
office premises have also not been displayed.
(3) Affidavits, which were to be filed by the petitioners giving
details of their investments etc. with various investors with their dates
of investments etc., as stipulated in clause 8 of order dated 29.11.2011
have also not been given.
(4) The condition to maintain a balance of Rs.1.00 crore in the
account has also not been complied with.
(5) Various irrelevant objections were raised by the petitioners
before the Court Commissioner in making refund to the investors.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners could not deny
or controvert the non-compliance of above terms. It was stated by him
that the money which was to come from some sources could not be received
in time and he states having filed an application being Crl.M.A.
19796/2011 in this regard. Most of the averments which are part of this
application relate to the terms and conditions which formed part of the
aforesaid orders and were conditions of the interim protection against
arrest. However, by filing the aforesaid application, the petitioners
seem to be trying to manipulate the things by bringing FDI related
averments which are apparently extraneous for the consideration in
present proceedings. By filing of this application, the petitioners seem
to be trying to justify non-compliance of terms/conditions or wriggle out
of those and also disputing their liability and attributing the same to
FDI of M/s. Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose
Infracon Ltd. In the given facts, having noted that many of the terms
and conditions remained uncomplied, the conduct of the petitioners post
orders dated 4.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 does not seem to be bona fide. Not
only that, as per the last order, they were directed to be present in
this court in person so as to know their bona fide personally as
different versions were being presented by different counsels
representing them. Despite directions for appearance, they are not
present in person. The application filed by petitioner Sanjay Gambhir vide Crl. M.A. 19878/2011 seeking exemption on the ground that he has
threat to his life, is highly misplaced and untenable. When he was on
protection of this Court and was made to appear in the Court, there could
not be any apprehension of any threat. The learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply for
their non-appearance. This creates further doubt in the bona-fide of the
petitioner?s statements which were made at the time of seeking interim
protection vide orders of 4th and 29th November, 2011. No satisfactory
reason could be given as to non-compliance of the terms, some of which
are noted above. In fact, nothing has been averred or stated to
demonstrate bona fide of the petitioners even at this stage except the
bald statements made that funds could not be received and they are
interested to settle the matter.
On the other hand, the learned APP and the Investigating Officer
also informed that there are large number of complaints still pouring in
after the previous orders. It was specifically stated that earlier,
there were 76 complaints which have now risen to 101, but till date, only
18 of those complainants could be repaid. Of course, in addition to
those 18, some more investors have also got refunds, but that number is
very small. Some investors were also present today in the court stating
that they were issued post-dated cheques by the petitioners, which on
presentation have also been dishonoured. This could not be controverted
or rebutted by the petitioners? counsel.
At this stage, learned APP again strongly maintained that in the
given facts and circumstances and in furtherance of the reasons stated by
her in the earlier application, as mentioned in Para (12) of the order
dated 29th November, 2011, custodial interrogation of the petitioners
was required for proper investigation.
Though the matter had been heard at length and the anticipatory
bail applications of the petitioners could be disposed of on merits but,
keeping in view the fact that the issue regarding the liability of M/s.
Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose Infracon Ltd.,
which though apparently extraneous as noted above, has been raised, for
proper adjudication and in the interest of justice, the APP may file
reply to the said application confined to the aforesaid averments
regarding liability. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sanjay Gambhir also desired a reply in this regard to be filed by the
APP.
Having regard to the entire factual matrix and the conduct of the
petitioners, the fact that till date Sanjay Gambhir has not appeared
before this court and it is not known as to the number of investors and
the amounts invested by them with dates etc. and the amounts refunded and
the circumstances under which FDI came to be involved and the case being
of mass public fraud and cheating, I do not think the petitioners to be
entitled for any further interim protection. In view of the above, the
interim protection granted to petitioner Sanjay Gambhir against arrest is
hereby withdrawn. For all these reasons, there is no reason made out by
other petitioners for grant of liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail applications. The APP may file reply to the aforesaid application
confined to the matter as indicated above within four weeks.
Renotify on 14.3.2012 for final hearing and disposal.
M.L. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
awanish
Good Work Dr. Ajit, here is order of Court dated 22.12.2011. Be notifed that anticipatory bail plea was withdrawn by the Gambhir family.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1416/2011
REENA GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Arvind Gaur, Adv. for complainant.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 8
BAIL APPLN. 1417/2011
SANJAY GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Malhotra,
Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and Mr. B. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 9
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2011
KARAN GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
O R D E R
22.12.2011
Crl. M.A. 19766/2011 in Bail Appln. 1416/2011 and Crl. M.A. 19769/2011 in
Bail Appln. 1418/2011
These applications of applicants Reena Gambhir and Karan Gambhir
have been filed seeking withdrawal of their interim bail applications No.
1416/2011 1418/2011 respectively with liberty to file fresh interim bail
applications.
The interim protection were granted to these petitioners subject to
certain terms and conditions which were evolved as part of mechanism with
the consent of their counsel, the counsel for investors, learned APP and
others.
Since most of the terms and conditions have not been complied with
and adhered to by the petitioners and they are now intending to withdraw
their interim bail applications, this court after having heard at length
on all aspects of the case, grant permission to withdraw the
applications, but without any liberty for filing fresh anticipatory bail
applications for the reasons as given below in Bail Appln. 1417/2011.
Bail Appln. 1417/2011 and Crl.M.As. 19796/2011 (for direction), 19878/2011
(for exemption from personal appearance)
In terms of order dated 04.11.2011 followed by the order of
29.11.2011, a mechanism was evolved with the consent of all parties and
certain directions were given for the reasons stated in those orders. It
was despite the fact that APP, all the complainants and investors had
been opposing the bail applications and asking for custodial
interrogation of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order, Shri Bharat
Parashar, Joint Registrar of this Court was appointed as Court
Commissioner and he has submitted his report faulting petitioners on
various counts in making any progress in the mechanism for refund of
money to the investors. In his report the Joint Registrar has
specifically noted that despite repeated oral and written requests, the
petitioners have not deposited any amount after the first deposit of Rs. 5.00 crore which is already exhausted. In fact vide his proceeding dated
1.12.2011, petitioners were instructed to ensure compliance of this
Court?s directions to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 1.00 crore and
other directions relating to the mechanism of refund, but the petitioners
who appeared before the Joint Registrar along with their counsels failed
to do so. He stated that petitioners do not seem to be inclined in
depositing any further amount and hence the mechanism agreed upon for
refund to the investgors cannot possibly function any more.
On the pointing out by learned counsel for the complainants and
APP, some of the terms not complied by the petitioners are noted:
(1) The advertisements which were to be given by the petitioners
in terms of order dated 04.11.2011 were not of the size as agreed and
subsequently as per order of 29.11.2011 also no advertisement, as agreed,
has been given by the petitioners.
(2) Sign boards and hoardings which were to be displayed at
office premises have also not been displayed.
(3) Affidavits, which were to be filed by the petitioners giving
details of their investments etc. with various investors with their dates
of investments etc., as stipulated in clause 8 of order dated 29.11.2011
have also not been given.
(4) The condition to maintain a balance of Rs.1.00 crore in the
account has also not been complied with.
(5) Various irrelevant objections were raised by the petitioners
before the Court Commissioner in making refund to the investors.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners could not deny
or controvert the non-compliance of above terms. It was stated by him
that the money which was to come from some sources could not be received
in time and he states having filed an application being Crl.M.A.
19796/2011 in this regard. Most of the averments which are part of this
application relate to the terms and conditions which formed part of the
aforesaid orders and were conditions of the interim protection against
arrest. However, by filing the aforesaid application, the petitioners
seem to be trying to manipulate the things by bringing FDI related
averments which are apparently extraneous for the consideration in
present proceedings. By filing of this application, the petitioners seem
to be trying to justify non-compliance of terms/conditions or wriggle out
of those and also disputing their liability and attributing the same to
FDI of M/s. Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose
Infracon Ltd. In the given facts, having noted that many of the terms
and conditions remained uncomplied, the conduct of the petitioners post
orders dated 4.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 does not seem to be bona fide. Not
only that, as per the last order, they were directed to be present in
this court in person so as to know their bona fide personally as
different versions were being presented by different counsels
representing them. Despite directions for appearance, they are not
present in person. The application filed by petitioner Sanjay Gambhir vide Crl. M.A. 19878/2011 seeking exemption on the ground that he has
threat to his life, is highly misplaced and untenable. When he was on
protection of this Court and was made to appear in the Court, there could
not be any apprehension of any threat. The learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply for
their non-appearance. This creates further doubt in the bona-fide of the
petitioner?s statements which were made at the time of seeking interim
protection vide orders of 4th and 29th November, 2011. No satisfactory
reason could be given as to non-compliance of the terms, some of which
are noted above. In fact, nothing has been averred or stated to
demonstrate bona fide of the petitioners even at this stage except the
bald statements made that funds could not be received and they are
interested to settle the matter.
On the other hand, the learned APP and the Investigating Officer
also informed that there are large number of complaints still pouring in
after the previous orders. It was specifically stated that earlier,
there were 76 complaints which have now risen to 101, but till date, only
18 of those complainants could be repaid. Of course, in addition to
those 18, some more investors have also got refunds, but that number is
very small. Some investors were also present today in the court stating
that they were issued post-dated cheques by the petitioners, which on
presentation have also been dishonoured. This could not be controverted
or rebutted by the petitioners? counsel.
At this stage, learned APP again strongly maintained that in the
given facts and circumstances and in furtherance of the reasons stated by
her in the earlier application, as mentioned in Para (12) of the order
dated 29th November, 2011, custodial interrogation of the petitioners
was required for proper investigation.
Though the matter had been heard at length and the anticipatory
bail applications of the petitioners could be disposed of on merits but,
keeping in view the fact that the issue regarding the liability of M/s.
Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose Infracon Ltd.,
which though apparently extraneous as noted above, has been raised, for
proper adjudication and in the interest of justice, the APP may file
reply to the said application confined to the aforesaid averments
regarding liability. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sanjay Gambhir also desired a reply in this regard to be filed by the
APP.
Having regard to the entire factual matrix and the conduct of the
petitioners, the fact that till date Sanjay Gambhir has not appeared
before this court and it is not known as to the number of investors and
the amounts invested by them with dates etc. and the amounts refunded and
the circumstances under which FDI came to be involved and the case being
of mass public fraud and cheating, I do not think the petitioners to be
entitled for any further interim protection. In view of the above, the
interim protection granted to petitioner Sanjay Gambhir against arrest is
hereby withdrawn. For all these reasons, there is no reason made out by
other petitioners for grant of liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail applications. The APP may file reply to the aforesaid application
confined to the matter as indicated above within four weeks.
Renotify on 14.3.2012 for final hearing and disposal.
M.L. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
awanish
BAIL APPLN. 1416/2011
REENA GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Arvind Gaur, Adv. for complainant.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 8
BAIL APPLN. 1417/2011
SANJAY GAMBHIR
... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Malhotra,
Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and Mr. B. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
$ 9
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2011
KARAN GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Adv. and
Mr. Badrinath, Adv.
versus
STATE ... Respondent
Through: Ms Fizani Husain, APP with I.O.
Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for the complainants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
O R D E R
22.12.2011
Crl. M.A. 19766/2011 in Bail Appln. 1416/2011 and Crl. M.A. 19769/2011 in
Bail Appln. 1418/2011
These applications of applicants Reena Gambhir and Karan Gambhir
have been filed seeking withdrawal of their interim bail applications No.
1416/2011 1418/2011 respectively with liberty to file fresh interim bail
applications.
The interim protection were granted to these petitioners subject to
certain terms and conditions which were evolved as part of mechanism with
the consent of their counsel, the counsel for investors, learned APP and
others.
Since most of the terms and conditions have not been complied with
and adhered to by the petitioners and they are now intending to withdraw
their interim bail applications, this court after having heard at length
on all aspects of the case, grant permission to withdraw the
applications, but without any liberty for filing fresh anticipatory bail
applications for the reasons as given below in Bail Appln. 1417/2011.
Bail Appln. 1417/2011 and Crl.M.As. 19796/2011 (for direction), 19878/2011
(for exemption from personal appearance)
In terms of order dated 04.11.2011 followed by the order of
29.11.2011, a mechanism was evolved with the consent of all parties and
certain directions were given for the reasons stated in those orders. It
was despite the fact that APP, all the complainants and investors had
been opposing the bail applications and asking for custodial
interrogation of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order, Shri Bharat
Parashar, Joint Registrar of this Court was appointed as Court
Commissioner and he has submitted his report faulting petitioners on
various counts in making any progress in the mechanism for refund of
money to the investors. In his report the Joint Registrar has
specifically noted that despite repeated oral and written requests, the
petitioners have not deposited any amount after the first deposit of Rs. 5.00 crore which is already exhausted. In fact vide his proceeding dated
1.12.2011, petitioners were instructed to ensure compliance of this
Court?s directions to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 1.00 crore and
other directions relating to the mechanism of refund, but the petitioners
who appeared before the Joint Registrar along with their counsels failed
to do so. He stated that petitioners do not seem to be inclined in
depositing any further amount and hence the mechanism agreed upon for
refund to the investgors cannot possibly function any more.
On the pointing out by learned counsel for the complainants and
APP, some of the terms not complied by the petitioners are noted:
(1) The advertisements which were to be given by the petitioners
in terms of order dated 04.11.2011 were not of the size as agreed and
subsequently as per order of 29.11.2011 also no advertisement, as agreed,
has been given by the petitioners.
(2) Sign boards and hoardings which were to be displayed at
office premises have also not been displayed.
(3) Affidavits, which were to be filed by the petitioners giving
details of their investments etc. with various investors with their dates
of investments etc., as stipulated in clause 8 of order dated 29.11.2011
have also not been given.
(4) The condition to maintain a balance of Rs.1.00 crore in the
account has also not been complied with.
(5) Various irrelevant objections were raised by the petitioners
before the Court Commissioner in making refund to the investors.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners could not deny
or controvert the non-compliance of above terms. It was stated by him
that the money which was to come from some sources could not be received
in time and he states having filed an application being Crl.M.A.
19796/2011 in this regard. Most of the averments which are part of this
application relate to the terms and conditions which formed part of the
aforesaid orders and were conditions of the interim protection against
arrest. However, by filing the aforesaid application, the petitioners
seem to be trying to manipulate the things by bringing FDI related
averments which are apparently extraneous for the consideration in
present proceedings. By filing of this application, the petitioners seem
to be trying to justify non-compliance of terms/conditions or wriggle out
of those and also disputing their liability and attributing the same to
FDI of M/s. Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose
Infracon Ltd. In the given facts, having noted that many of the terms
and conditions remained uncomplied, the conduct of the petitioners post
orders dated 4.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 does not seem to be bona fide. Not
only that, as per the last order, they were directed to be present in
this court in person so as to know their bona fide personally as
different versions were being presented by different counsels
representing them. Despite directions for appearance, they are not
present in person. The application filed by petitioner Sanjay Gambhir vide Crl. M.A. 19878/2011 seeking exemption on the ground that he has
threat to his life, is highly misplaced and untenable. When he was on
protection of this Court and was made to appear in the Court, there could
not be any apprehension of any threat. The learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply for
their non-appearance. This creates further doubt in the bona-fide of the
petitioner?s statements which were made at the time of seeking interim
protection vide orders of 4th and 29th November, 2011. No satisfactory
reason could be given as to non-compliance of the terms, some of which
are noted above. In fact, nothing has been averred or stated to
demonstrate bona fide of the petitioners even at this stage except the
bald statements made that funds could not be received and they are
interested to settle the matter.
On the other hand, the learned APP and the Investigating Officer
also informed that there are large number of complaints still pouring in
after the previous orders. It was specifically stated that earlier,
there were 76 complaints which have now risen to 101, but till date, only
18 of those complainants could be repaid. Of course, in addition to
those 18, some more investors have also got refunds, but that number is
very small. Some investors were also present today in the court stating
that they were issued post-dated cheques by the petitioners, which on
presentation have also been dishonoured. This could not be controverted
or rebutted by the petitioners? counsel.
At this stage, learned APP again strongly maintained that in the
given facts and circumstances and in furtherance of the reasons stated by
her in the earlier application, as mentioned in Para (12) of the order
dated 29th November, 2011, custodial interrogation of the petitioners
was required for proper investigation.
Though the matter had been heard at length and the anticipatory
bail applications of the petitioners could be disposed of on merits but,
keeping in view the fact that the issue regarding the liability of M/s.
Beekman Helix India Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rose Infracon Ltd.,
which though apparently extraneous as noted above, has been raised, for
proper adjudication and in the interest of justice, the APP may file
reply to the said application confined to the aforesaid averments
regarding liability. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sanjay Gambhir also desired a reply in this regard to be filed by the
APP.
Having regard to the entire factual matrix and the conduct of the
petitioners, the fact that till date Sanjay Gambhir has not appeared
before this court and it is not known as to the number of investors and
the amounts invested by them with dates etc. and the amounts refunded and
the circumstances under which FDI came to be involved and the case being
of mass public fraud and cheating, I do not think the petitioners to be
entitled for any further interim protection. In view of the above, the
interim protection granted to petitioner Sanjay Gambhir against arrest is
hereby withdrawn. For all these reasons, there is no reason made out by
other petitioners for grant of liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail applications. The APP may file reply to the aforesaid application
confined to the matter as indicated above within four weeks.
Renotify on 14.3.2012 for final hearing and disposal.
M.L. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 22, 2011
awanish
Do anybody of copy of licence of DD issued to it by DTCP, Haryana
Do anybody have copy of sale deed made by DD to BPTP.
Do anybody have copy of sale deed made by DD to BPTP.
i have the copy of licence, send me your email address i will send you
We want Plot
its [protected]@hotmail.com. Can any body tell when DD Group sold the land to BPTP?
its [protected]@hotmail.com. Can any body tell when DD Group sold the land to BPTP?
Operative Part of High Court Order dated 22.12.2012
Having regard to the entire factual matrix and the conduct of the petitioners, the fact that till date Sanjay Gambhir has not appeared before this court and it is not known as to the number of investors and the amounts invested by them with dates etc. and the amounts refunded and
the circumstances under which FDI came to be involved and the case being of mass public fraud and cheating, I do not think the petitioners to be entitled for any further interim protection. In view of the above, the interim protection granted to petitioner Sanjay Gambhir against arrest is hereby withdrawn. For all these reasons, there is no reason made out by other petitioners for grant of liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail applications. The APP may file reply to the aforesaid application confined to the matter as indicated above within four weeks.
Renotify on 14.3.2012 for final hearing and disposal.
Having regard to the entire factual matrix and the conduct of the petitioners, the fact that till date Sanjay Gambhir has not appeared before this court and it is not known as to the number of investors and the amounts invested by them with dates etc. and the amounts refunded and
the circumstances under which FDI came to be involved and the case being of mass public fraud and cheating, I do not think the petitioners to be entitled for any further interim protection. In view of the above, the interim protection granted to petitioner Sanjay Gambhir against arrest is hereby withdrawn. For all these reasons, there is no reason made out by other petitioners for grant of liberty to file fresh anticipatory bail applications. The APP may file reply to the aforesaid application confined to the matter as indicated above within four weeks.
Renotify on 14.3.2012 for final hearing and disposal.
BAIL APPLN. 1416/2011
REENA GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neraj Chaudhari and Mr.
B. Badrinath, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State with SI Kumar Kundan from
EOW/ Crime Branch.
Mr. Saheel Sarwar Wani, Mr. Akhil Sibal, Mr. Anurag Jain and Jaideep Sethi, Advocates for complainants /investors.
And
BAIL APPLN. 1417/2011
SANJAY GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari
and Mr. B. Badrinath, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State with SI Kumar Kundan from
EOW/ Crime Branch.
Mr. Saheel Sarwar Wani, Mr. Akhil Sibal, Mr. Anurag Jain and Jaideep
Sethi, Advocates for complainants /investors.
And
BAIL APPLN. 1418/2011
KARAN GAMBHIR ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari and
Mr. B. Badrinath, Advocates
versus
STATE ... Respondent
Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State with SI Kumar Kundan from
EOW/ Crime Branch.
Mr. Saheel Sarwar Wani, Mr. Akhil Sibal, Mr. Anurag Jain and Jaideep Sethi,
Advocates for complainants /investors.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
O R D E R
29.11.2011
The petitioners herein have been granted interim protection vide
order dated 4th November, 2011 of this Court on certain terms and
conditions as mentioned in the orders dated 31st October, 2011 and 4th
November, 2011. In pursuance thereto, Shri Bharat Parashar was appointed
as Court Commissioner. He has submitted some written communication in
this regard which is taken on record. I have heard the learned counsel
for the claimants/investors, learned APP and learned counsel for the
petitioners. Having regard to this communication received from the Court
Commissioner, the pleas of the counsel appearing for the
investors/complainants and also of learned APP, there are various issues
which have been raised and which need to be addressed and resolved.
These can be noted as under :
1) The advertisements which were given in the newspapers are alleged to
be of 8 cm x 4 cm size and not of 8? x 6? as was decided on the last
date. I recall this to be factually correct. The counsel appearing for
the petitioners state that the advertisement of this size could not be
given because of shortage of space in the newspapers. This plea of the
counsel for the petitioners does not appear to be acceptable. In any
case, now they are directed to take out the advertisement in these
newspapers of the size 8? x 6?. In the advertisement, the address of the
Court Commissioner, Shri Bharat Parashar with his office telephone number
will also be given. The advertisement will be taken out within ten days
from today in the same newspapers.
2) The signage boards and the hoardings which were displayed on the
office premises of the petitioners are alleged to have been removed. The
photograph showing the same is placed on record by the investors. The
petitioners would install conspicuous signage/ hoardings at their all
office premises within one week from today.
3) There are some investors who purchased the receipts from the original
investors, but have not got their names transferred. It was reported
that the petitioners are asking for transfer charges in those cases even
now. That is not permissible by any standard. The Court Commissioner
will decide these cases on case to case basis and pass appropriate orders
after being satisfied as regards the original investors and genuineness
of such purchasers. He can, if required, ask for the affidavit of the
original investors or the indemnity bond of the purchaser of any other
document, as may be deemed fit depending upon case to case.
4) There are certain investors who have also paid to the petitioners transfer charges. All these payments made by them to the petitioners
would be taken as investments and would be entitled to be refunded with
interest.
5) There are certain investors who have made the investments but their
names do not figure in the list. All those investors who are found to be
genuine by the Court Commissioner will also be entitled to refunds with
interest irrespective of the fact that if their names are not in the
list.
6) There are certain investors who may be interested in alternative
plots, if any, in any recognized and duly licensed project of the
petitioners or their co-associates. All such investors would have the
option to opt for the alternative plot that may be available with the
petitioners, but it is clarified that the petitioners will not give any
false assurances and the alternative plots, if any, to be offered would
be in duly licensed and approved projects. Such investors would be doing
so at their own option as alternative to their right of refund with
interest, if they so desire.
7) It is pointed out that there are some investors who have made huge
amounts of investments in cash, but the receipts given to them by the
petitioners were of lesser amounts. The matter of these investors can be
taken up later after some time after seeing the progress of the mechanism
undertaken for refund of willing investors.
8) In pursuance of the order dated 31st October, 2011, an affidavit was
required to be filed by the petitioners with regard to the number of
investors and total amount of investment that has been made by them
towards various projects launched by the petitioners in different parts
of the country and they were also required to submit the records of these
investors along with amounts of investments and the dates of
investments/instalments. The affidavit filed by the petitioners is not
in consonance with the said order. The petitioners as a last chance are
directed to file the detailed affidavit on the above lines within one
week from today.
9) It is informed that the affidavits are being taken by the Court
Commissioner while giving refund of the investments and it has a
stipulation in clause (iv) as under :
?(iv) That I further undertake and confirm that I, including my successor
or any person claiming through or under me, is left with no claim, right,
title, interest against the said provisional registration regarding the
Unit/ Plot/ Flat in the future project of the Company.?
This clause in all the affidavits which have been filed by the
investors/claimants shall be deemed to be struck off. Henceforth, the
affidavits shall not contain clause (iv) since the refund is being taken
by them without prejudice to their rights ? civil as well as criminals ?
that may be available to them.
10) One of the counsel representing investors pointed out that the number
of investors was about 3800. He has filed a copy of the number of the
investors in the different projects of the petitioners. A copy of the
same has been given to the petitioners? counsel for clarification. Any
further order in this regard may be passed at appropriate time after the
filing of the affidavit as above by the petitioners.
11) It has already been stated in the order dated 4th November, 2011 and
it is reiterated that all this mechanism, that has been evolved regarding
the refund of investors who are willing to take refund and now those who
are willing to take alternative plots, is without prejudice to their
rights and contentions that they may have against the petitioners or
their companies or associates in the criminal as well as civil matters,
as may be available to them and this is also without prejudice to the
investigation and also the charges leveled against the petitioners in the
FIR.
12) The learned APP has been maintaining and insisting for custodial
interrogation of the petitioners on various grounds which she has
presented in writing dated today itself before Court. The same has been
taken on record and it shall form part of this order. However, the same
is not being reproduced in detail here in this order. In view of all
that has been ordered on the previous dates and today, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioners, if required, would be decided at
appropriate time after further observing the conduct of the petitioners
and the progress of the mechanism undertaken.
Nothing contained herein above shall amount to expression of
opinion on merits of the case.
Keeping in view the nature of work being done by the Court
Commissioner, the petitioners would hand over to him a cheque of
Rs.75, 000/- as part of remuneration of the work done by him.
Renotify on 22nd December, 2011.
The petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation.
A copy of this order be given to the Court Commissioner.
Dasti.
M.L. MEHTA, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
skw
$ 1, 2 and 3