May 03, 2017
Updated by comp B S R GRIHNIRMAN PVT LTD
BEAU RIVAGE ESTATES PVT LTD
KALPITAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BEAU GANGA DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
RAJDEEP RAHEJA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
MONT BLANC HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED
BEAU RIVAGE TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD
BEAU RIVAGE INVESTMENT AND FINANCE PVT LTD
QUEENS VILLA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
LOUISIANA ESTATES PVT LTD
SUNANDA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED
ADVANTAGE RAHEJA HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED
V RAHEJA EDIFICE PRIVATE LIMITED
VERONA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
V RAHEJA ABODE PRIVATE LIMITED
KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT LTD
Varz Buildon Private Limited
Neelyamuna Builders Private Limited
LAVINA ESTATES PVT LTD
SHIRAZ BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
S B R ESTATES AND FINANCE PVT LTD
VARUNA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
PIUS KRISHNA TRADERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
B RAHEJA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED 1
GALLERIA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
LUSHAN DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAMPSHIRE DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
LHOTSE DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
ADVANTAGE RAHEJA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED
ADVANTAGE RAHEJA INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
ANNAPURNA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED
KAVERI ESTATES PVT LTD
ASTORIA BUILDERS PVT LTD
VBR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
PEBBLE BAY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
V Raheja Developers and Builders Private Limited
VILLAR HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
Vaamika Island Resorts Private Limited
CONGO DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Green View Backwater Hotels Private Limited
VILLA SORENTO DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
ADVANTAGE RAHEJA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED
MISSISSIPPI TRADERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
VEDA DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED
BEAU YAMUNA TRADERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Touchstone Resorts Private Limited
CONOOR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
GEORGE TOWN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
NEO CAPRICORN PLAZA PRIVATE LIMITED
JUHU BEACH RESORTS LIMITED
NEEL SARITA INVESTMENT AND FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BRINDABAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
D B R PROPERTIES PVT LTD
ADVANTAGE RAHEJA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
ADVANTAGE RAHEJA RESORTS AND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED
ADVANTAGE RAHEJA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
ADVANTAGE RAHEJA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED
KAVERI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD
SEA RAY BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Seaspring Builders Private Limited
SAND PEBBLES CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
B. RAHEJA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
Adira Hotels and Resorts Private Limited
WINDERMERE DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
MID-CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
Casabianca Builders Private Limited
Santorini Realty Private Limited
PLAZA COURT BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
SEASIDE PROPERTIES PVT LTD
SONA VILLA DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
BRINDABAN TRADERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
LEMAN HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
KAMAKSHI TRADERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
KALI TRADERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
GSTAAD HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED
GIGAPLEX DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Engageon Softtech Private Limited
VILLAR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Florence Builders Private Limited
QUEENS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD
ATHENA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED
ANNONAY TRADERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
BELMONTE DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
V RAHEJA DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED
SAND MEADOWS BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
BALTIMORE DEVELOPERS AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
V Raheja Properties Private Limited
ETP INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED
BURGUNDY HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.
AVANI REALTORS PVT. LTD.
May 03, 2017
Updated by comp From,
Mr.Srichand V. Gorwani,
101, Toscano Apartment,
10th Floor, 29-A Manuel Gonsalves Road,
Bandra (West),
Mumbai-400050
To,
HON'BLE AND RESPECTABLE CHIEF MINISTER
Sir,
Sub : Complaint against Accused Mr.Vijay Raheja, Mr.Deepak Raheja,
Ms.Avani Raheja, Mr.Aditya Raheja & others of B. Raheja Group.
1) I Mr.Srichand V. Gorwani, aged 78 years, request you to lodge my complaint as I am time and again harassed by the Developer M/s Queens Villa Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Queens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Villar Builders Pvt. Ltd which is none the else but the company attached and or governed by both brothers namely Mr. Vijay B. Raheja and Mr. Deepak B. Raheja and their immediate family members are having their common offices at Raheja Chambers, Linking Road and Main Avenue, Above Benetton Showroom, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054 and the said developer is time and again harassing me and my family members for the ulterior motive that the entire intention is that I must withdraw ALL the complaints against them wherein they have cheated me and my family members to the extent of Rs.20 crores and odd.
2) The said developer/accused is bent upon to harass me and pressurise me by one means or the other. I say that me and my brother were joint owners of land and Bungalow (4 old structures) known as ‘Gorwani House’ situated at Manuel Gonsalves Road, bearing Plot no. 29-A, TPS IV, bearing CTS no. F/986, F/987, F/988, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050, and were occupying and residing on the said land and bungalow alongwith 3 tenants since year 1977.
3) I had entered into an MOI (Memorandum of Intent) dated 26th September, 2003 and thereafter Registered Agreement dated 25th January, 2005 with the said developer/accused wherein it was clearly mentioned that me and my brother would keep for ourselves 50% of plot area/FSI i.e. 4500 sq.ft. built-up out of Total plot area of 9171 sq.ft. built-up area and the remaining plot I sold to the said developer/accused thereby I am still the co-owner of the land till date by virtue of the said MOI and Registered Agreement.
4) The said developer/accused were to utilize from me and my brother’s retained FSI/area of 4500 sq.ft. built-up to construct for me and my brother Two (2) Flats each adm. 2250 sq.ft. built-up area in the new building known as ‘Toscano’ (Old building known as ‘Gorwani House’) on my aforementioned land, One flat for my brother was to be constructed on the 9th floor adm. 2250 sq.ft built-up area and Second flat for myself on the top-most 10th floor adm. 2250 sq.ft. built-up area. Me and my brother paid Rs. 15 Lacs each towards construction cost of our flats on 9th and 10th floor respectively. The said developer/accused were merely contractors for me and my brother’s flat on 9th and 10th floor to whom we had entrusted our FSI/area of 4500 sq.feet. built-up which was to be sincerely utilized on 9th and 10th floor.
5) The Developer/accused hatched a criminal conspiracy in collusion with their Architect and played a fraud upon me and my family members by not constructing ‘Flats’ of size 2250 sq.ft. built-up area. The developer/accused after executing the MOI and Agreement and after demolishing the old building secretly behind our back approached the ULC (Urban Land Ceiling) department and illegally obtained order to construct ‘TENEMENTS” of 1291 sq.ft. built-up area for poor/weaker sections of people under guise of section 22 o[censored]LC Act and sold the same as ‘FLATS’ to Rich income people (Cricketer Yuvraj Singh and others), thereby cheated me and my brother by giving us less area to the extent of 959s.f. (Less area alloted) x 2 Flats = 1918 sq.ft. built-up area (4500s.f.-1291s.f.-1291s.f. = 1918 sq.ft. ) and misappropriated 1918 sq.ft. which belongs to me and my brother in their own saleable flats thereby added Four (4) additional floors above my top-most 10th floor which was to be the last floor. The said developer played mischief and allotted me less area therefore I lodged a complaint of cheating in your office but no action was initiated.
6) The developer has played similar fraud with others and also against me. I say that the Developer/accused did not mention a SINGLE word in the said MOI and Agreement that the said developer would be constructing ‘Tenements’ of 1291 sq.ft. built-up area which proves that the said developer/accused had malafide intention with ulterior motive to cheat me and my brother.
7) The said developer/accused have cheated me and my family members to the tune of more than Rs.20 crores and your office did not pay any heed to my complaint, therefore I am lodging the present complaint against the said developer/accused and request your goodself to investigate the matter in depth.
8) Further, The said Mr. Deepak and Vijay B. Raheja are also habituated to form the several companies in different names and thereby also cheat the government exchequer. List of more than 100 sham companies is annexed alongwith this letter all having common offices and directors. The said developer/accused is also the owner of J.W. Mariott Hotel at Juhu, Pune and Bangalore and have also cheated government by importing thousands of luxurious items such as luxury cars, expensive crockeries, cutleries, kitchenware, Italian marbles, Imported Liquors etc.. under DGFT scheme to avoid custom duty on the pretext of earning foreign exchange for the country and thereafter diverts and uses the same luxury items for personal purposes and building projects (even admitted by Raheja’s own staff ).
9) The amount of rupees more than 1000 crores is siphoned off from the company and company is shown as loss because of which the Income- tax Authorites have been deprived of from the collection of income tax dues. Each ‘Tenement’ have been sold as ‘Flats’ in the said new building known as ‘Toscano’ by the said developer to the tune of Rs. 6-10 crores (Purchaser’s own admission) and the Agreement Value Records only around Rs. 3-4 crores thereby they have amassed on EACH ‘Tenement’ around Rs. 6 crores in BLACK money amounting to more than Rs. 70-80 crores from just one building including illegal sale of car Parking spaces.
10) The said Mr. Vijay B. Raheja and Mr. Deepak B. Raheja are the mastermind behind entire fraud and crime committed by them and their immediate family members and have also cheated the government by constructing ‘Tenements’ of 1291 sq.ft. under the guise of section 22 of the ULC Act (homes for poor/weaker sections) and sold the same as ‘Flats’ to multi-millionaire in the said building known as ‘Toscano’ at Bandra (W) e.g. Mr.Yuvraj Singh (Famous Cricketer-14th Floor), Ms. Anu Aggarwal (Vice President, Corporate- Kotak Mahindra Bank-1stFloor), Mr. Suresh Vaswani (NRI, 8th Floor illegally occupying reserved REFUGE floor), Mr.Mundra (NRI, 11thand 12th Floor), Mrs. Shanti Raheja (Mother of Accused, 5th Floor) Mr.Hansrajani (Businessman, 3rd Floor), Ms. Avani Raheja (Daughter of Accused Vijay Raheja-13th Floor), Mr.Poonawalla (Businessman, 2nd Floor).Not a single ‘Tenement’ has been allotted to poor/weaker sections for whom the developer/accused have sought permission and constructed in the said building known as ‘Toscano’.
11) Such people are certainly not covered under weaker section, you are requested to investigate the matter in depth and prosecute said developer/accused.
Yours faithfully,
Srichand V. Gorwani, senior citizen
1) The Honble Prime Minister
Parliament House,
New Delhi
2) The Hon’ble Finance Minister,
Parliament House,
New Delhi.
3) The Hon’ble Minister for Home Affairs,
Parliament House,
New Delhi.
4) The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Mumbai Circle,
New Marine Lines,
AyakarBhavan,
Mumbai-400020
5) TheHon’ble Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai-400001
Author: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION No.33246 OF 2016
AND WRIT PETITION Nos.[protected] OF 2016(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Deepak Raheja
Son of Late Bhagwan Das Raheja,
Aged about 61 years,
Raheja Chambers,
Linking Road Main Avenue,
Santacruz West,
Mumbai,
Now at Bengaluru.
2. Aditya Raheja
S/o. Deepak Raheja,
Aged about 34 years,
No.24/1, Lavel 1,
Vittal Mallya Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
3. M/s. Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and
Having its Registered office at
Raheja Chambers, Linking Road,
And Main Avenue, Santacruz West,
Mumbai - 400 054.
WP No.33246/2016
& WP Nos.[protected]/2016
2
And Branch office at
Onxy Centre, 4th Floor,
#5, Museum Road,
Bengaluru-560 001
Represented herein by
Its Director, Mr. Aditya Raheja. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. Ajesh Kumar S, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Station House Officer,
Sanjayanagar Police Station,
Sanjayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 094.
2. A.S. Ponnanna
S/o. A.K. Subbaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at Flat No.32,
Tower-3, Pebble Bay,
A-11, RMV 2nd Stage,
1st Main Road, Dollars Colony,
Bengaluru-560 094. ...Respondents
(By Sri. Nasarulla Khan, HCGP for R-1;
R-2 Served)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying
to quash the order dated:21.04.2016 passed in
Crl.R.P.670/2015 at Annexure-A issued by Court of LVI Addl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City and etc.,
WP No.33246/2016
& WP Nos.[protected]/2016
3
These Writ Petitions having been heard and reserved
for orders on 12.10.2018, this day the Court made the
following:
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in CC No.34838/2014 pending in the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru Bengaluru (henceforth for brevity referred to as "the trial Court") for the offence punishable under Section 336 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 21.04.2016 passed in Crl.R.P.No.670/2015, by the Court of the learned LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57), before the learned Sessions Judge and also for quashing of the entire charge sheet in CC No.34838/2014.
2. Summary of the case of the prosecution as could be gathered at this stage is that, the present WP No.33246/2016 & WP Nos.[protected]/2016 second respondent lodged a complaint with the first respondent police on 29.07.2013 in their Station Crime No.217/2013 against the present petitioners alleging that the complainant and several other similarly placed persons are residents of an apartment complex called "Pebble Bay" constructed and developed by petitioner No.3 herein of which the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the Directors. They have not constructed the project in full and there is a delay of more than two years. That apart, the quality of the construction is also very poor and repeated complaints to the builders has also fallen on the deaf ears. That being the case, on 29.07.2013 at about 8.30 am., an aluminum French window measuring about 80 sq.ft came crashing down from the 22nd floor Pent House of Tower 6. The window has not been fixed properly and fixtures were defective. The window fell on the podium area and the shattered glass has fallen on all WP No.33246/2016 & WP Nos.[protected]/2016 the house balconies of Tower 6. The incident could have caused death or severe injury to persons on the garden as it is an area frequented by children, walkers and other residents to access their apartment. The area where the window fell was usually populated and fortunately nobody was hurt. The complainant called the outcome as the negligence by the builders who are the accused shown in the complaint (petitioners herein) and thus, the conduct of the accused amounts to an act of endangering criminal trust or breach.
3. The trial Court by its order dated 23.12.2014 took cognizance of the matter and issued process to the accused. The petitioners being the accused in the said cases questioned the same by filing a Revision Petition under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.670/2015. The learned Sessions Judge by his order WP No.33246/2016 & WP Nos.[protected]/2016 dated 21.04.2016 dismissed the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contention of the petitioners taken up in their memorandum of writ petitions contended that the petitioners have not done the alleged act deliberately, as such, there is no negligence on their part. Further the work of fixation of the window panels were given to a contractor under Sub-Contract, as such, it may be the said Sub-Contractor is negligent in his act, but not the present petitioners.
5. Finally, stating that the ingredients of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code has not been made out, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for allowing the petitions.
WP No.33246/2016 & WP Nos.[protected]/2016
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his argument submitted that the alleged incident is not in dispute and mere taking of cognizance would not affect the rights or interest of the petitioners, there is prima facie case made out against the petitioners.
7. The second respondent despite service of notice, has not appeared in the matter.
8. It is not in dispute that the apartment complex called "Pebble Bay" was constructed and developed by petitioner No.3 - Company, of which, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the Directors. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.2 and other named persons as complainants in the complaint at Annexure-B are the residents / occupants of the said apartment. It is also not in dispute that on 29.07.2013, at around 8.30 am., an aluminum french window fell from the 22nd floor WP No.33246/2016 & WP Nos.[protected]/2016 of the pent house of Tower 6 of the said apartment and it fell on the podium area. When admittedly, petitioner No.3 is the builder-Company, of which, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the Directors, their contention that they had given Sub-Contract of the work to a contractor, as such, the petitioners are not liable in any manner, is not acceptable. At this stage, it can be noticed that there is no material to arrive at any conclusion that the alleged sub-contract in favour of the third party / contractor was in any manner exonerated the present petitioners ie., the builders from their liability towards their purchasers / residents in the apartment. The contract between the builder and alleged sub-contractor how far is binding on the occupants of the building is not within the scope of the present writ petitions. If at all the petitioners have got any such contentions to be raised, they may take up such contentions before the appropriate forum / WP No.33246/2016 & WP Nos.[protected]/2016 authority or may be in the trial Court at an appropriate stage. At this stage, suffice it to say that the alleged incident since has not been denied shows that there was fall of aluminum window of a larger dimension from the 22nd floor of the apartment building. Thus, prima facie it shows an act of alleged negligence.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his argument relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Manu/SC/0016/2015) and drew the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.37 of the said judgment which reads as below:
"37. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that WP No.33246/2016 & WP Nos.[protected]/2016 individual who would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so."
10. In the instant case, the alleged offence is under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code. Whether to constitute an act of negligence under the said Section, the mens rea as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is a requirement can be ascertained only in a full fledged trial. However, at this stage, suffice it to say that the intention is clearly a mental state and a type of legal fault. Another type of legal fault in mental state is a negligence. The incident, if happened because of the neglect of some precaution that a reasonable man would have used though apparently may look like an WP No.33246/2016 & WP Nos.[protected]/2016 accident, but, its occurrence would be due to some omission or negligence on the part of the Committer. Thus, the present incident which is not in dispute amounts to a negligent act attracted under Section 336 of IPC is a matter of trial.
At this stage, suffice it to say that the materials collected makes out a prima facie case to subject the accused for trial, as such, I do not find any merit in the petitions. Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH