Friday, 24 February 2017

જૈન ચેરીટેબલ ટ્રસ્ટે છેતર્યા એક અંધ વૃદ્ધ વ્યક્તિને

મુંબઇ, 24 ફરવારી 2017: જૈન ચેરીટેબલ ટ્રસ્ટ (રજીસ્ટર્ડ નંબર 19790 -મુંબઈ) વર્ધમાન સંસ્કાર ધામે છેતરપિંડી અને વિશ્વાસઘાત કર્યો છે. વર્ધમાન સંસ્કાર ધામે 2007 ની સાલમાં વિરાર રાજીવ નગરમાં, નૈઋત બિલ્ડિંગમા એક ફલેટ 4,30,000 (ચાર લાખ ત્રીસ હજાર રૂપિયા) મા લીધું હતું,  અને 2011 મા 13,19,000 (તેર લાખ ઓગણીસ હજાર)  એક અંધ વ્યક્તિ ને વેચ્યુ, જેમ નુ નામ જેઠમલજી ખેમરાજજી સોનીગરા છે, ટ્રસ્ટે જેટલું રોકાણ કર્યું હતું તેનાથી ત્રણ ગણું કમાણી કરી. સંસ્થા ના લેટરહેડ પર લખેલ રસીદ સ્પષ્ટ પણે બતાવે છે કે જેઢમલ સોનીગરા આ જગ્યા વેચાતી લીધેલ છે. તેના પછી નો બીજો લેટર ના કહેવા પ્રમાણે આ જગ્યા મા રહેવા માટે સોનીગરા આ રકમ ડિપોઝીટ આપેલ છે. પૂરી રકમ તે સમયના ભાવ પ્રમાણે મેળવી (565 square feet × Rs 2600 ના ભાવે),  તે છતાં ટ્રસ્ટ આ સોદો કેન્સલ કરવા માંગે છે.


જેઠમલજી  સોનીગરા અને એમની દીકરી પ્રવીણા
પહેલા જેઠમલ સોનીગરા ને આવી શંકા નહોતી કે સંસ્થા એમના અંધ હોવાનો ગેરલાભ લેશે,  4 વર્ષ થી સોનીગરા સતત સંસ્થા ને માગણી કરતા રહ્યા કે તમે રજીસ્ટર્ડ સેલ એગ્રીમેન્ટ કરી આપો, પરંતુ ટ્રસ્ટીઓ આ વાતને ટાળતા રહ્યા અને છટકતા રહ્યા.  જગ્યા ની લેવડ-દેવડ માટે અને આગળ કાર્યવાહી માટે સોનીગરા એ આ ટ્રસ્ટીઓ સાથે વાત કરી હતી :- યોગેશ એમ શાહ (ચીફ ટ્રસ્ટી), જયોતીસ એન કુવાડીયા (ટ્રસ્ટી ),  ભારત એન સાકરીયા (ટ્રસ્ટી ), અને દિનેશ શાહ (ટ્રસ્ટી).
 ઓક્ટોબર 2016  માં સોનીગરા એ નકકી કર્યું કે હવે હદ થઈ  એટલે તેમને વકીલ મારફતે એક ઔપચારિક પત્ર ટ્રસ્ટને મોકલવ્યો. ટ્રસ્ટીઓ એ લખાણ મા કાઈ જવાબ ના આપ્યો, તેમને મોઢે થી કીધું કે અમે લીવ-એન્ડ-લાયસન્સ ના એગ્રીમેન્ટ બનાવી આપીશું  પરંતુ સેલ ના એગ્રીમેન્ટ નહીં બનાવી આપીએ.
સોનીગરા એ અર્નાલા પોલીસ સ્ટેશનમાં લેખિત ફરિયાદ નોંધાવી, PSI ગોવલે એ બધા કાગળ જોયા અને CA ચેતન મેહતા અને બીજા ટ્રસ્ટીઓ સાથે વાત કરી, અને તે પછી આશ્ચર્ય મા મૂકાયા તેવી વાત કહી સોનીગરા ને, કે તમારે સંસ્થા નો આભાર માનવો જોઈએ, એમને તમારા ઉપર ખુબજ મહેરબાની કરી કે તમને ઘર માં રહેવા દીધું !

આ દસ્તાવેજો વાંચી અને મામલો સમજો :
1) 2007 - બીલ્ડર અને સંસ્થાની વચ્ચે નોંધાયલ રજીસ્ટર્ડ સેલ એગ્રીમેન્ટ
2) 2011 - સંસ્થાના લેટરહેડ પર સોનીગરા અપાયેલ વેચાણ પત્ર
3) 2012 - સંસ્થાની ના લેટરહેડ પર ખોટી રીતે લખવામાં આવ્યું છે કે સોનીગરા અંધ સાર્ધમિક છે એટલે એમની પાસે ડીપોઝીટ લઈને તેમને રહેવા આપ્યુ છે
5) ડિસેમ્બર 2016 – સોનીગરા દ્વારા અર્નાલા પોલીસ સ્ટેશન ને લખેલ શિકાયત

વર્ધમાન સંસ્કાર ધામ ટ્રસ્ટ ના પાસે નૈઋત બિલ્ડિંગમાં 10 ફલેટ અને લગભગ 30 ફલેટ આજુબાજુ ના એરિયામાં છે. લગભગ 8 વર્ષથી મોટા ભાગના ફલેટ ખાલી છે. કેટલાક ફલેટો ટ્રસ્ટીના નામ પર રાખેલ છે, પરંતુ એમનું મેન્ટેનેસ સંસ્થાના ખાતામાથી ભરાય છે, અમુક મકાન સોનીગરા જેવા સાર્ધમિક માટે રાખેલ છે.
સવાલ ઊઠે છે સોનીગરા જેવા કેટલા સાર્ધમિક નું શોષણ થયું હશે? શું ટ્રસ્ટીઓ આવી રીતેજ કાર્ય કરે છે?

જનહિત મા પ્રસારિત સુલૈમાન ભીમાની અને 
કૃષ્ણરાજ રાવ દ્વારા
+91 93236 42081
+91 98215 88114
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com 
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

1) Read the emailed rebuttal of Vardhaman Sanskar Trust.

2) Read specific questions which the trustees declined to answer. 

Friday, 17 February 2017

Flat Sale or Leave & Licence? Jain "Charitable" Trust cheats Blind Flat-buyer

Mumbai, 17th February, 2017: It's a simple case of cheating and breach-of-trust by a Jain "charitable" trust called Vardhman Sanskar Dham (Trust Reg. no. 19790 – Mumbai). In 2007, Vardhaman Sanskar Dham purchased a flat in Nairut building, Rajiv Nagar, Virar, for Rs 4.30 lakh. Four years later, in 2011, the trust sold this flat to a blind man named Mr Jethmal Sonigra for Rs 13.19 lakhs, earning more than three times the amount that it had invested. However, although the first letterhead-receipt of the trust clearly shows that Mr Sonigra had paid for purchase of the flat (565 sq. ft. x Rs 2,600/-), the second letter says that this amount is a "deposit" against which "we have hand over possession for residence purpose". 

Through this letter, this "charitable trust" is trying to say that allowing him to stay in this house was only a "charitable act" towards a blind man, and the money that he paid them – three times the price of the flat – was only a "deposit"!


Jethimal Sonigra and his daughter Pravina.

At first Sonigra did not suspect foul play. For over four years, Sonigra kept on pursuing the trustees to register the sale, and the trustees kept on postponing and evading him. In the course of this transaction and its follow-up, the blind man interacted with Mr Yogesh M Shah (chief trustee), Mr Jyotish N Kuwadia (trustee), Mr Bharat Sakaria (trustee), and Dineshbhai (retired trustee), who all kept passing the buck at one another.

In October 2016, Sonigra finally decided that enough was enough, and he sent the trust a formal letter through a lawyer requesting them to register a sale agreement. The trustees haven't replied in writing, but they have been telling the blind man that they will make a Leave-and-Licence agreement, but not a sale agreement! 
Now at the end of his tether after five years of chasing the trustees, Sonigra submitted a written complaint to Arnala police station. Surprisingly, it seems PSI Govle told him, after perusing the documents and speaking to CA Chetan Mehta and other trustees, that he should be grateful to Vardhman Sanskar Dham and its charitable-minded trustees!

Read these documents and understand the facts of the case:
  1. 2007 - Registered Flat-Purchase Agreement between builder and Trust.
  2. 2011 - Letter of sale given to Sonigra on Trust letterhead.
  3. 2012 - Trust letter stating that it was giving the blind Jain (Sadharamik) man "possession" against a "deposit" because he required "accommodation".
  4. Oct 2016 – Lawyer's letter to the Trust asking them to register Sale Agreement.
  5. December 2016 – Sonigra's police complaint to Arnala Police Station
Vardhaman Sanskar Dham Trust has at least 10 flats in Nairut building alone, and 30 or more flats in surround areas in Virar. Some flats are held in the names of trustees. Quite a few flats are occupied by "charitable" occupants like Jethmal Sonigra. 

How many more followers of Jainism has Vardhman Sanskar Dham exploited? Is this their regular modus operandi?

Written with key inputs by Sulaiman Bhimani (9323642081)

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com



1) Read the emailed rebuttal of Vardhaman Sanskar Trust.

2) Read specific questions which the trustees declined to answer. 

Questions to which Vardhaman Sanskar Trust avoided replying

To this press release, the trustees of Vardhaman Sanskar Dham emailed a rebuttal.

The below email was written raising further queries to their rebuttal. The queries raised by us in this email (in red) went unanswered.


From: Krishnaraj Rao <krish.kkphoto@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Draft Press Release on Cheating by Vardhman Sanskar Dham
To: Yogeshmshah Mahasukhalal <yogeshmshah@gmail.com>
Cc: chartered accountant <chartered9@gmail.com>, kuvadia jyotish <jyotishkuvadia@gmail.com>, Nilesh Patni <patniagency@gmail.com>, chetan mehta <cachetanmehta18@gmail.com>, Sulaiman Bhimani <sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com>, Pravina Sonigra <psob286vr@gmail.com>

Dear Yogeshbhai,
Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. My colleague Mr Sulaiman Bhimani and I will study your reply with care. If necessary, we will also seek the opinion of lawyers and chartered accountants to understand your transaction.
However, I feel that your rebuttal is somewhat loosely worded, and therefore, allow me to ask you some direct questions. I hope you will reply as directly as possible, and supported with documents if necessary.
My questions are below in red, in front of the respective paragraphs in your email:

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Yogeshmshah Mahasukhalal <yogeshmshah@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Krishnmunj Rao
Mumbai
 Received your draft press release on cheating by Vardhaman Sanskar Dham by mail on 13/02/2017
 Our rebuttal is as under  :

     It is factually wrong that the Trust has sold the flat situated at Bldg RN. 7 Flat No.103 to   Mr. Jethmalji  Sonigra  for Rs 13.19 Lakhs. The letter dated 12/04/2011  referred by you as a first letter head/ receipt of the Trust clearly shows that Mr. Sonigra had paid for purchase of the flat is not a receipt, It is only a  letter issued by our Virar branch to different Jain trust including Navjivan Jain Swetamber Murtipujak Sangh, Lamington Road, Mumbai. (acknowledgment stamp is clearly evident on the letter )  This letter was issued to support Mr. Sonigra for collection of fund to enable him to purchase a flat at Rajiv Nagar Complex. In this complex our Trust has financially supported around  250 families for app.300 lakhs to purchase a flat by interest free loan.


1) Sir, is it true and factual  that your Trust purchased the said flat in 2007 for an amount of Rs 4.3 lakhs? Yes or no?
2)  Sir, is it true and factual that against the same flat, your Trust accepted an amount of Rs 13.2 lakhs by cheque from Mr Sonigra? Yes or no?

      It is our Virar branch’s effort to settle Mr. Sonigra at Rajiv Nagar, for which they had appeal to various Trust and we have also received Fund  from them and amount was credited to Mr. Sonigra’s  account at that time, we have also given  possession of our  flat.  So flat no is mentioned accordingly, in this letter they have also mentioned that our Trust will help up to Rs. 150000/- to Mr. Sonigra for purchase the flat, This was our sincere effort to settle Mr. Sonigra at Rajiv Nagar Complex as per his wish.
3)  Sir, is it true and factual that the so-called "help" of Rs 1.5 lakhs was in the form of an "interest-free loan" or deferred payment? Yes or no? If not, please clarify in what form this amount was given as "help",
4) Whether Loan, Grant or otherwise, is it true and factual that the value of the flat (565 sq ft x 2600/-) was indicated on your Trust letterhead? If not, kindly explain what is the meaning and purpose of the figure indicated in the brackets, and why such a calculation was made. 

       The letter dated 14/03/2012 issued by our Head Office is as under
                                    We are in possession of flat no 103/E Nairut building of Rajivnagar,Virar, Mr.Jethumal Sonigra is a Blind jain Sadharmik and requires an accommodation.     We have received Rs.1319000/-as a deposit from him. Against this we have hand over the possession said flat no 103 to him for residence purpose.
                   It is very important that Mr.Sonigra has accepted this letter without any objection or issue at that time it means it is acceptable to him and never complain until 4 year
5) Is it true and factual that your Trust neither proposed nor made any rental agreement and/or leave-and-licence agreement with Mr Sonigra?
6) Is it true and factual that no monthly rent and/or any other form of regular payment was demanded from Mr Sonigra by your Trust, and no such payment was ever made by Mr Sonigra?

    During the period of 4 years whenever Mr. Sonigra approach us for purchase of flat as price was increase and he required more support we never refuse, as earlier our Trustee late Shri Subhash Malde has helped a lot and supported him to purchase flat at Agasi-virar also, our members and donor has supported Mr. Sonigra regularly as he was blind and associated with our religious activity. It is evident that even in May / June 2016 he requested us for help we have given Rs.25000/- by cheque on 03/06/2016 to him.  So our relation are good, there is no question of passing the buck at one another, even our Trustee Mr. Jyotish Kuvadia has offer his flat situated at complex, which was bigger than existent  flat for purchase but Mr. Sonigra has refused.

7) Sir, you say, "During the period of 4 years whenever Mr. Sonigra approach us for purchase of flat as price was increase..." Sir, what was the original purchase price of the flat indicated to Mr Sonigra, mentioned in you above paragraph, and what was the amount of increase stated by you?  
 

      Vardhman Sanskar Dham is charitable trust which has its own fame in helping people in need, has around 10 flat at Nairut building which are for socio-Religious activities carried out by local resident.
      It is factually  wrong that our Trust holding 30 or more flats in surrounding area in Virar.  whatever property we hold that was only at Rajiv Nagar Complex developed by us and for the benefit of local resident, only one flat which is hold by trustee Mr. Jyotish Kuvadia which was directly purchase from builder, non of trustee holding any property at Rajivnagar complex,

     Our Trust is registered Charitable Trust whatever we have done that is for the benefit of all the middle class Jain family at Rajiv Nagar, we have always helped Mr. Sonigra,  will do in future also.


 For VARDHAMAN SANSKAR DHAM

 YOGESH M.SHAH
  (TRUSTEE)

Rebuttal of Vardhaman Sanskar Dham, Jain Charitable Trust, to Charges of Cheating & Fraud

To the draft of this press release (which we emailed to them), the trustees of Vardhaman Sanskar Dham emailed a rebuttal, which we reproduce below.
From: Yogeshmshah Mahasukhalal <yogeshmshah@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: Draft Press Release on Cheating by Vardhman Sanskar Dham
To: Krishnaraj Rao <krish.kkphoto@gmail.com>
Cc: chartered9@gmail.com, kuvadia jyotish <jyotishkuvadia@gmail.com>, Nilesh Patni <patniagency@gmail.com>, chetan mehta <cachetanmehta18@gmail.com>

Dear Shri Krishnmunj Rao

Mumbai



 Received your draft press release on cheating by Vardhaman Sanskar Dham by mail on 13/02/2017



 Our rebuttal is as under  :



     It is factually wrong that the Trust has sold the flat situated at Bldg RN. 7 Flat No.103 to Mr. Jethmalji  Sonigra  for Rs 13.19 Lakhs. The letter dated 12/04/2011  referred by you as a first letter head/ receipt of the Trust clearly shows that Mr. Sonigra had paid for purchase of the flat is not a receipt, It is only a  letter issued by our Virar branch to different Jain trust including Navjivan Jain Swetamber Murtipujak Sangh, Lamington Road, Mumbai. (acknowledgment stamp is clearly evident on the letter )  This letter was issued to support Mr. Sonigra for collection of fund to enable him to purchase a flat at Rajiv Nagar Complex. In this complex our Trust has financially supported around  250 families for app.300 lakhs to purchase a flat by interest free loan.



      It is our Virar branch’s effort to settle Mr. Sonigra at Rajiv Nagar, for which they had appeal to various Trust and we have also received Fund  from them and amount was credited to Mr. Sonigra’s  account at that time, we have also given  possession of our  flat.  So flat no is mentioned accordingly, in this letter they have also mentioned that our Trust will help up to Rs. 150000/- to Mr. Sonigra for purchase the flat, This was our sincere effort to settle Mr. Sonigra at Rajiv Nagar Complex as per his wish.



       The letter dated 14/03/2012 issued by our Head Office is as under



 We are in possession of flat no 103/E Nairut building of Rajivnagar,Virar, Mr.Jethumal Sonigra is a Blind jain Sadharmik and requires an accommodation. We have received Rs.1319000/-as a deposit from him. Against this we have hand over the possession said flat no 103 to him for residence purpose.



It is very important that Mr.Sonigra has accepted this letter without any objection or issue at that time it means it is acceptable to him and never complain until 4 year



    During the period of 4 years whenever Mr. Sonigra approach us for purchase of flat as price was increase and he required more support we never refuse, as earlier our Trustee late Shri Subhash Malde has helped a lot and supported him to purchase flat at Agasi-virar also, our members and donor has supported Mr. Sonigra regularly as he was blind and associated with our religious activity. It is evident that even in May / June 2016 he requested us for help we have given Rs.25000/- by cheque on 03/06/2016 to him.  So our relation are good, there is no question of passing the buck at one another, even our Trustee Mr. Jyotish Kuvadia has offer his flat situated at complex, which was bigger than existent  flat for purchase but Mr. Sonigra has refused.



      Vardhman Sanskar Dham is charitable trust which has its own fame in helping people in need, has around 10 flat at Nairut building which are for socio-Religious activities carried out by local resident.



      It is factually wrong that our Trust holding 30 or more flats in surrounding area in Virar.  whatever property we hold that was only at Rajiv Nagar Complex developed by us and for the benefit of local resident, only one flat which is hold by trustee Mr. Jyotish Kuvadia which was directly purchase from builder, non of trustee holding any property at Rajivnagar complex,



     Our Trust is registered Charitable Trust whatever we have done that is for the benefit of all the middle class Jain family at Rajiv Nagar, we have always helped Mr. Sonigra,  will do in future also.



 For VARDHAMAN SANSKAR DHAM
YOGESH M.SHAH
(TRUSTEE)

Thursday, 16 February 2017

What makes Karnataka High Court the Darling of Tobacco Lobby?

Mumbai, 16th February, 2017: It's a proven fact that millions of innocent young lives are saved by a law named COTPA, requiring tobacco brands to display graphic warnings on 85% of their packaging surface. Naturally, India's tobacco barons – mercenary drug lords whose business consists of spreading tobacco-addition among youths -- are lobbying for dilution of this law and hunting for reliefs from court. But why are all the tobacco barons filing petitions in Karnataka High Court in particular, instead of their own states? Of all the high courts that are available to them, why Karnataka?

Why is Karnataka High Court entertaining them and giving them red-carpet treatment despite lack of jurisdiction?
And why is Supreme Court – the Indian citizen's last hope -- looking the other way and allowing trhis forum-hunting?
These are uncomfortable questions, bordering on criminal contempt. But, with millions of lives at stake, one is compelled by conscience to raise such questions publicly.
Is Karnataka High Court an exclusive club for tobacco manufacturers from all over India to congregate?
On 4th February, Advocate K V Dhananjay wrote this letter to the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Chief Justice of India, the Union Law Minister and the Prime Minister, protesting the preferential treatment being meted out to the tobacco-wallahs, muzzling those who seek to represent on behalf of millions of victims of tobacco, whom COTPA seeks to protect. 
 

CONSIDER THE FACTS PUT FORTH IN ADV. DHANANJAY'S LETTER:
  1. ITC Limited is the largest cigarette manufacturer in India. It is a registered and a publicly traded company. It has its registered office at Kolkata, West Bengal. It wished to challenge the constitutional validiry of this 85% pictorial warning regulation upon its cigarette packs. It did not approach the Calcutta High Court, however. It instead chose the Karnataka High Court. Its Writ Petition to the Karnataka High Court says that it has a warehouse within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court [Writ Petition No. 103356 of 2016]. The only respondents are policy respondents, the Central Government, at New Delhi. Obviously, ITC Limited has warehouses in several other States as well, and this petitioner is clueless on why ITC Limited chose this particular High Court.
  2. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. is a leading cigarette company in India. It has its registered office at Mumbai, Maharashtra. It did not move the Bombay High Court, it also chose the Karnataka High Court [Writ Petition No. 103391 of 2016] - on the ground that there was a warehouse within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court. Again, the only respondents are policy respondents in New Delhi.
  3. VST Industries Ltd is another leading cigarette company in India. It has its registered office at Hyderabad, Telangana. Curiously, it did not move the Hyderabad High Court at all. Instead, it also sought the Karnataka High Court [Writ Petition No. 103417 of 2016]. Expectedly, they had a godown within the jurisdiction of this High Court. The only respondents are policy respondents in New Delhi.
  4. Ghodawat Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. is a leading chewing tobacco manufacturer in India. It has its registered office at Kolhapur, Maharashtra. It did not choose the Bombay High Court to fight the 85% pictorial warning. Curiously, it too came down to the Karnataka High Court [Writ petition No. 100996 of 2016]. It has a factory within the jurisdiction of this High Court, it said. And, the only respondents are policy respondents in New Delhi.
  5. Then, there is a body known as the Tobacco Institute of India, which is a registered Company. Its members are from the different segments of the tobacco trade in India; it advocates for the protection of the tobacco trade in India. It has its registered office in New Delhi. It too wanted to challenge the 85% pictorial warning. It did not choose the Delhi High Court, however. It travelled all the way down to the Karnataka High Court. Having a member or more from Karnataka was its ground to seek this High Court. Also, the only respondents are policy respondents from New Delhi.
  6. There are 24 High Courts spread across India, with equal power under our Constitution. And, the largest tobacco traders undoubtedly have warehouses or factories at numerous places in India. Assuming that the tobacco companies and tobacco interest groups thought that they had the legal freedom to choose any High Court in this country, it is an extraordinary and inexplicable quirk of chance that they all chose the same High Court this time -- the Karnataka High Court.
  7. Separately, another petition to the Karnataka High Court was by a Bangalore Advocate [Writ Petition No.56789 of 2014),who says to the High Court that he smokes and still keeps good health. He says that the pictorial warnings have prevented him from leading a happy and a normal life; he has a constitutional right against pictorial warnings, he says. He says that these gruesome images were defamatory to him and had invaded his right to privacy. He wishes to argue that the Government prescribed warning, 'smoking Causes Throat Cancer' was manifestly false. In support of an immediate stay upon the 85% pictorial warning, he had averred that "it will cause serious disturbance and mental trauma" to him and that he will suffer "irreparable injury" otherwise. Further, he had also asked for quashing the 40% pictorial warning as well.
  8. A stay was granted by the Karnataka High Court in a similar petition. After a few developments, the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Supreme Court wished to transfer all the cases from different High Courts to one High Court. The aforementioned cases gave Karnataka High Court more cases than other High Courts. The Supreme Court accordingly, transferred all cases from different High Courts to the Karnataka High Court on the ground that Karnataka High Court had more cases than other High Courts. [Order dated 4-May-2016 in Karnataka Beedi Industry Association v. Union of India, SLP (Civil) No. 10119-10121 of 2016. The PIL in the Rajasthan High Court was also transferred to the Karnataka High Court so as to be decided by a Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
  9. Tobacco packs in India now mandatorily carry pictorial warnings on two largest sides of the pack to the extent of 85% of each side - a picture of a cancerous organ ravaged by tobacco. After Supreme Court transferred the tobacco companies' petitions at different High Courts attacking the legality and reasonableness of this regulation to the Karnataka High court, a special Bench of the Karnataka High court began hearing it and is about to conclude the hearing. In the 75 hours devoted so far to hear the tobacco industry's challenge to the health warnings, this Bench has refused to hear argument about the harmful effect of tobacco as it says that such information is 'irrelevant', 'unnecessary' or would be a wastage of the Court's time'.
Based on the facts of this letter, one asks: what exquisite stench is Karnataka High Court emitting, that attracts tobacco manufacturers and lobbyists from across the country like vultures?
ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Flat-buyers beware! Horizon Green Borivali does not have CLEAR TITLE

Mumbai, 12th February, 2017: Horizon Green, the prestigious new Borivali East project, has huge issues. No real drainage system – that's a  serious problem we have written articles about. But there's a more serious worry for flat-purchasers, namely, not getting proper title to the purchased flat at Horizon Green. The confusion on who's legally the builder of Horizon Green -- Raheja, Bhoomi or Prashasti -- is like three men claiming to have fathered one child. On the municipal corporation's records, K Raheja is the builder. But Prashasti Enterprise is claiming to prospective flat-purchasers that it is the builder. And in between Raheja and Prashasti, there's the ghost of Bhoomi Constructions, a partnership that has been dissolved. 

On paper, Bhoomi Constructions got the development rights in 2003 from K Raheja for building Horizon Green, and in turn assigned these development rights to Prashasti Enterprise in 2008. But that's only on paper; in real life, neither Bhoomi nor Prashasti exercised the said development rights, and Horizon Green was entirely built by the efforts of K Raheja through their company Tropicana Properties Pvt. Ltd. which was later changed to Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

So, if you buy a flat in Horizon Green, it's like buying something from Chor Bazaar; pay the money, take the goods and don't ask questions! You will get no warranties, no guarantees and no consumer rights. Between Raheja, Bhoomi and Prashasti, there is a defective and broken chain of title; then how can Prashasti transfer good title to a flat purchaser? Clearly, it can't! So, the flat-buyers cannot get clear title over their flats.

The whole realty market is giving conflicting versions on who is the developer. Home Realty says Horizon Green is a Bhoomi project. Mumbai Property Exchange lists it as a Prashasti project. Housing.com is promoting it as a K Raheja project

The IOD, CC and OC were issued to K Raheja. MCGM's Occcupation Certificate was issued to Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (a Raheja Group company) in April 2015. The stop-work notice and FIR filed in 2016 were also filed against Palm Grove. So, in the eyes of civic authorities, Palm Grove i.e. K Raheja is the builder.

But a flat-buyer is forced to enter into the flat-purchase agreement with Prashasti Enterprise, which is completely unrelated to K Raheja.

Prashati came into the picture by virtue of a doubtful and possibly illegal unregistered Agreement made in March 2008, which was reinforced by a Supplementary Agreement signed in June 2015, three months after the Occupation Certificate was issued to K Raheja. Bhoomi Constructions claims to got development rights from K Raheja vide an agreement made in January 2003, and transferred the same to Prashasti Enterprise.

The agreement between Bhoomi Constructions and Prashasti Enterprise is illegal and invalid. Why? Here are some reasons:

1) Can a dissolved partnership firm transfer any title or development rights formerly held by the firm? NO. When Bhoomi Constructions transferred the rights to Prashasti Enterprises by a stamped and registered supplementary agreement, the former had already been dissolved. How can the individual partners of a partnership firm that is no longer in existence, enter into (or ratify, confirm, stamp and register) any agreement and to transfer the development rights i.e. title that was held by the firm? This transfer is bad in law.

2) If development rights are not exercised by the entity holding it, can it claim to be the "developer"? NO. Development rights were never exercised by Bhoomi and Prashasti. Neither Bhoomi nor Prashasti exercised their development rights for building Horizon Green. From beginning to end of construction, the development rights were exercised by Palm Grove i.e. K Raheja. There isn't even one paper on record showing that Bhoomi Constructions or Prashasti Enterprise exercised the development rights.

3) Can an Association Of Persons act like a corporate entity? NO. Prashasti Enterprise is only an Association Of Persons (AOP), not a proper corporate or firm. It is neither a company nor a partnership firm, but an odd kind of association – a conglomerate of two natural persons (Mr Jayesh J Doshi and Mr Nirav B Mehta, apparently relatives of the owners of Bhoomi Constructions) and a corporate entity (M/s Prashasti Developers Pvt. Ltd.). In India, there is no special law applicable to an AOP, and therefore, there is no transparency in their dealings with the public or with government authorities. AOP is an entity under Income Tax Act, but it is generally unregulated, unaccountable, and difficult to hold legally liable.

Telling MCGM that Palm Grove is the builder and telling the flat purchaser that Prashasti is the builder -- that is itself cheating. Yeh 420 wala kaam hai! The three builder groups have deliberately colluded to create grey areas for everybody, in order to evade being held responsible by various law-enforcement agencies and judicial forums. (More details of this will be disclosed in future articles.)

WARNING TO POTENTIAL HOME BUYERS


If you are thinking of buying a flat at Horizon Green, ask yourself the question: if you have to go to consumer court for some reason, against whom will your make you claim for compensation -- K Raheja's Palm Grove Beach Hotels, Bhoomi Construction's individual partners or the Association of Persons called Prashasti Enterprise? Consult some chartered accountants and lawyers, and they will tell you that this is a grey area. Our courts take decades to decide even clear-cut cases where everything is black-and-white. If there are grey areas, you will have to run from pillar to post for many decades in search of justice.

Mr & Mrs Home Buyer, a flat in Horizon Green is like quicksand. So keep a safe distance, and don't get stuck in it.

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Justice Karnan's contemptuous reply to SC's contempt notice

Mumbai, 12th February, 2017: Justice CS Karnan's reply to Supreme Court's contempt notice is heroically contemptuous. Based on this reply, one expects that the contempt hearing of India's judge-gone-berserk will probably have sensational disclosures about allegedly corrupt judges, particularly Chief Justice of Madras High Court SK Kaul. One is led to wonder whether Justice Karnan is on trial here, or India's judiciary is on trial!

Read Justice Karnan's defiant reply to the contempt notice.

 

In Justice Karnan's reply to the suo motu contempt notice served on him by a seven-judge bench, he alleges that the notice issued is (a) bad in law (b) illogical (c) unethical (d) against natural justice (e) mala fide (f) biased along caste lines, and most importantly, (g) intended to shield Justice SK Kaul who is about to be elevated to the Supreme Court. Karnan's reply -- like Arundhat Roy's defiant reply in 2001 -- is almost certain to be held as contemptuous by Supreme Court.

In his earlier letter dated 23rd January, 2017, Justice CS Karnan furnished the prime minister with "an initial list of corrupt judges", and in addition, three other officers of Madras High Court, who he implied had detailed knowledge and proof of corrupt acts of the 20 judges listed. Justice Karnan asked for the judges, including some retired judges, to be "interrogated by the officers of the Central Agencies".

The nation is keenly watching this case to decide whether:
    a) Justice Karnan is a judge with impaired mental functioning? If so, what constitutional safeguards exist to prevent him from heavily damaging the reputation and function of the higher judiciary? OR
    b) Or Justice Karnan is a whistleblower revealing rampant corruption? And if so, what constitutional mechanisms do we have to conduct proper investigation against the 20 judges he has named?
ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com