Join us on Facebook
Become a GFWA member

Site Announcements

Invitation to RPS SAVANA Allottees to join Case in NCDRC against RPS Infrastructures Ltd


Have you submitted a rating and reviewed your project?
Rate & Review your project now! Submit your project and review.
Read Reviews! Share your feedback!


** Enhanced EDC Stayed by High Court **

Forum email notifications...Please read !
Carpool from Greater Faridabad to Noida
Carpool from Greater Faridabad to GGN


Advertise with us

Community forum for members, residents and investors of BPTP Parklands Plots and Villas Faridabad. Spread across sectors 75, 76,77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89 (Faridabad)

HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby SMalhotra » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:41 pm

Received the following message.Kindly confirm its authenticity and what be the likely outcome of such investigations.

Quote
"Dear Parkland Plot owners

HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

July 9 - Delhi High Court has ordered an investigation of BPTP Parklands and BPTP Park Pride Faridabad and in particular the complaints made by investors, to be conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. As per the High Court, this has been done, keeping in view the fact that a large number of investors had approached the Court by way of impleadment applications. The SFIO is directed to file its report within twelve weeks. The matter would now be listed on 2nd November 2012.

Here are the court orders from the judge handling TIDCO Affairs.

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 21. CRL.M.C. 13/2012 and CRL.M.A. 49/2012, 12070/2012 KABUL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondent Through Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State with SI Suneel Kumar, Conn. Place, New Delhi. Mr. Ramashankar with Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocates for Complainant. Mr. Abhishek, Advocate for Investors. Mr. Mohit Mathur with Ms. Vidhi Gupta and Mr. Devendra, Advocates for Investors. AND 22. CRL.M.C. 31/2012 and CRL.M.A. 105/2012, 12071/2012 KABUL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma and Mr. Sumit Arora, Advocates versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State with SI Suneel Kumar, Conn. Place, New Delhi. CRL.M.C. 13/2012 and 31/20102 Page 1 of 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN O R D E R 09.07.2012 Keeping in view the fact that a large number of investors have approached this Court by way of impleadment applications, this Court considers it appropriate to have an investigation conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (for short ?SFIO?), under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Accordingly, SFIO, 2nd Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi ? 110 003 is directed to investigate affairs of ?BPTP Parklands, Faridabad? and ?BPTP Parkland Pride? and in particular the complaints made by the investors. The SFIO is directed to file its report within twelve weeks. Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply copy of the entire paper books to SFIO within a period of two weeks. List on 2nd November, 2012. Order dasti. MANMOHAN, J JULY 09, 2012 rn CRL.M.C. 13/2012 and 31/20102 Page 2 of 2"

Right time multiple FIRs be filed by owners of BPTP Parkland Plots, Princess Park and Parkland Pride
- First with Local Administration
- Followed by FIR with EOW
- and Serious Fraud Investigation Office through Court.

This builder is a rogue cowboy builder with no sense of ethics and business.

ANY FRAUD ABOVE 2CR IS HANDLED BY EOW AND THOSE INTERESTED TO FILE INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS WILL ONLY STRENGTHEN YOUR STAND.

A link providing DRAFT COMPLAINT AGAINST BUILDER WITH ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING (Courtesy myfaridabad.in) for those suffering.

Some of the attachments that may be relevant, subject to nature and scope of complaint.
1. Application for allotment
2. Allotment Letter
3. Buyers Agreement
4. Tripartite Agreement
5. All Payment Receipts
6. Permission to mortgage letter
7. Intimation from Builder regarding commencement of activities
8. Master layout plan recieved at the time of booking
9. Updated layout plan as per revised brochure
10. Map captured by while visit to Site Office

This is not meant to recommend or guide or promote any complaint but information that each one may like to use or not use depending on own discretion.

Cheers

--
CLICK TO COMMENT AND SUPPORT 1000s OF GREATER FARIDABAD HOMESEEKERS
"Unquote

Your comments,please.
User avatar
SMalhotra
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:43 am

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby rajan » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:32 pm

hi friends
in continuation of the posting of shri malhotra i have to add following.
this is the same case againest BPTP from mr goyal ,under which the non balable warrants was issued from the patila court some time back..BPTP (WITH ALL HIS CONTACTS) could not got the FIR vacated from the patila court.
in the mean time som more investors approched the police and the court.BPTP then applied to HON'ble High Court for getting the FIR vacate,as the original complaint was setteled out of court.How ever,thanks to the indpendence of judiciary ,The high cort not only not vacated the FIR but directed the SFIO to investigate this and other cases.
a previous order of the HIGH COURT in the same case is pasted below
QUOTE

.IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 13/2012

KABUL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate

with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.
Versus

STATE and ANR ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP

Mr. Rama Shanker, Adv. for complainants Somnath Munjal and Manish Anand

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. for investors Sanjay Bakshi, Nemshah Aggarwal
and Kamal Ahuja ?.

SI K.K. Mishra, P.S. Connaught Place

$ 30

CRL.M.C. 31/2012

KABUL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Sumit Arora and Mr. Amit Khanna,
Advocates.,Advocate

Versus

STATE and ANR ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP

Mr. Rama Shanker, Adv. for complainants Somnath Munjal and Manish Anand

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. for investors Sanjay Bakshi, Nemshah Aggarwal
and Kamal Ahuja ?.
SI K.K. Mishra, P.S. Connaught Place
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
O R D E R
02.03.2012
Crl.M.C.13/2012 and Crl.M.A.49/2012(stay)
Crl.M.C.31/2012 and Crl.M.A.105/2012(stay)

These are petitions for quashing of FIR No. 2/2011 and 3/2011
respectively, both registered at P.S. Connaught Place and under section
420/409/120-B IPC.

[b][b]The FIRs came to be registered on the complaints of Complainant
Anju Goyal and Suresh Goyal who had made some investments with the
petitioners in their projects of Parkland in Faridabad commonly known as
?BPTP Parklands at Faridabad?.

The quashing is sought on the ground that the petitioners have
compromised the matter with the complainants.

Shri Rama Shanker, Advocate is appearing and represents
complainants Somnath Munjal and Manish Anand and he states that these two
persons have investments with the petitioners in the sum of Rs.2.00 lakh
each. Likewise, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate is appearing for investors

Sanjay Bakshi, Nemshah Aggarwal and Kamal Ahuja. He states that these people have also made investments with the petitioners to the tune of
Rs.2.00 crore against the same project.

The case involves a land project and there is possibility that more
complaints may come in the matter. IO also states that people are
approaching him for lodging complaints.
That being so, it is not the case of quashing of FIR straightway.

Let fresh status report be filed.

Renotify on 16th May 2012.

M.L. MEHTA, march 02,2012"
UN QUOTE


so i have to say following
the mith that BPTP is all powerfull is breaking.
this is the time when all those who have sleepness night because of BPTP can act and act fast.
We at the "parklands owners association greater faridabad" can also lend helping hand in preparation of the documents,PROVIDED THE INETIATIVE IS TAKEN BY VARIOUS GROUPS OF PROJECTS OF BPTP.
I agree with the views of mr malhotra about the filing of criminal complaint in the police station.
Friends we can give you our solder to jump the wall But the wall will have to be jumped by you all.
regards
rajan
User avatar
rajan
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby BlessU » Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:59 am

Hi Parkland Plot Owners
Greetings

It is the right opportunity to hit, as this will by pass many a processes and strengthen the existing case. All you need to do is simply file your individual complaint with the EOW either in person or through a registered post.
REMEMBER BY LAW YOUR IDENTITY IS PROTECTED IF YOU SEND A COMPLAINT TO THE POLICE.

All you need to do is script a complaint as per provided guidelines, in my previous post, quoting the concerned High Court Order regarding complaints from Parkland Pride and Parkland Plot owners to be investigated by SFIO, with documents as suggested, to the extent possible and available with you.

NOTE TO GET THE SFIO TO INVESTIGATE IS NOT SIMPLE AND REQUIRES ORDER BY COURT OF A GOVT DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER THE COURT AND THE POLICE ARE BOUND BY LAW TO ENTERTAIN ANY SUBSEQUENT COMPLAINTS THAT GET LODGED IN SIMILAR CASE. THEY CANNOT IGNORE IT IF YOU HAVE QUOTED THE PERTINENT CASE.

I am looking for someone who can script a proper complaint and take a lead. A draft application filed earlier in similar context is available in the link DRAFT COMPLAINT TO EOW

As a help the Agenda and Matters that need to be worked on along with a "list of complaints" can be found on the link AGENDA AND LIST OF COMPLAINTS

Each complaint will only add power to the legal process. It is only law which can provide justiceto BPTP customers as all attempts to reason out with the company have failed and the insolence on the part of BPTP is growing by the day.

If you can think about your hardwork and value your money invested, this is the right course to follow, today, tomorrow on any time in future.

The link is only for those who wish to be seriously involved.

Cheers
User avatar
BlessU
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:51 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby rajan » Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:30 am

HI friends
some cautions
i will like to inform that the police,economic offence wing and SFIO ARE ALL DIFFERENT ORGANISATION.
normaly if the issue is simultaniously taken up by police and EOW,each feels it is others job.(and no body do it )
so we should not complicate the issue.
at present the case is been taken up by delhi police and the court has ordered,in there best wisdom,to get it examined by SFIO(not eow).
so in my openion we should strengthen the present case by putting more application on the delhi police.
to do that,the best course would be that each project of BPTP,like princess park,elite premium,parkland etc should form a group/association(which is already in making in some ).
then as a group look for some advocate(may be some one already fighting againest BPTP in this case )and than prepare a complaint under the advice of the advocate repeat under the advice of the advocate.
we should keep in mind that all our grivences are not covered under the criminal act.And only those issues which have a clear crimnal angle should be covered in this complaint.
pl remember,the first attempt from opposition party shall be to dismiss the case as a civil case to be covered under consumer form etc..And accordingly we should be very carefull while drafting our complaint,and that is where the help of advocate is a must.
this is an excelent opportunity and we should use it to the best of our ability.

regards
rajan
User avatar
rajan
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby BlessU » Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:59 pm

Hi
Greetings

Briefly,

Here, it is requested if someone can suggest/share a good draft in the case of BPTP Parkland Plots and Princess park, for a suitable complaint application to police Hry/Dlh and EOW??

I shall be thankful to the members for their help.

Cheers
User avatar
BlessU
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:51 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby SMalhotra » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:55 pm

Some more information::::

Quote---

"Hi
Greetings

Briefly,

EOW= Fraud above 2Cr affecting 20 or more people (draft already shared for filling a complaint application)
Delhi/Haryana Police= For FIR pertaining to almost anything (addresses already shared for filling a complaint application to CP and DCP Faridabad in a different post)
SFIO= http://www.sfio.nic.in/websitenew/main2.asp looks into cases transferred by court, investigating agencies and Ministry of Corporate affairs. Cases are of the nature of corporate fraud. Earlier matters similar to real estate taken up and investigated include JVG Group scam http://www.sfio.nic.in/websitenew/in%20SFIO.pdf

Obviously SFIO is referred to by court through department of corporate affairs, once the nature of crime is similar to what BPTP is committing. Not delivering, charging excess amount, extortion etc.....List of complaints in link Agenda and List of Complaints

Here, can someone suggest a good draft implicating BPTP in a criminal nature of offence, that can be filed with both state police agencies and THE EOW.
I shall be thankful to the members of the Parkland Plot Group, for helping draft such a complaint, that can be sent separately to different police agencies/departments leading to a successful FIR and further investigations and court case. The more the no. of complaints filed, better is the outcome likely to be.

All are requested to share the complaint reference no. received from EOW, once complaint is accepted by them.

I am sure to have a complaint drafted and sent by the end of this week

Cheers"

Unquote---
User avatar
SMalhotra
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:43 am

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby rajan » Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:50 pm

dear mr malhotra
kindly refer my posting in this thred.There can not be a common draft for all.
all the issues bothering us can also not be covered in the criminal complaint,unless we decide in advance to get our complaint rejected.
i again suggest that the best course of action shall be to consult an advocate for preparing ,filing and then taking up in the court for filing of an FIR,and persuing further as is being done in the present case by some indivisual investers.
the criminal complaint may be covering only a small part of our problem and this seggregation can be done only by a good lawyer.
regards
rajan
User avatar
rajan
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby BlessU » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:35 pm

Hi
Greetings

Can any member (BPTP or Other builder, homeseeker), who has earlier filed a complaint application with police/ EOW share the salient points to be incorporated.?
Can anyone suggest a good lawyer who can assist otherwise? Possible costs involved, scope etc.?

Cheers
User avatar
BlessU
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:51 pm

Problems with BPTP buyers

Postby ashoka2002inin » Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:46 pm

Dear BPTP buyers,
Let me apprise you few of things which may certainly help you to understand the main cause of problems. Please find the few of them as follows.

1. Most of BPTP buyers have received a letter for paying the interest and when users are asking about the details, they are not providing. Please don't pay anything because it is fake demand. Initially they asked me the interest around Rs. 80000 but when I refused them to pay anything and asked about payment details, they kept mum on this. But I kept chasing them and finally they provided me a calculation where the interest is only Rs. 780 instead of Rs. 80000. Actually they raised the demand on basis of computer generated report. They did not update the audit report of CA and raised the demand. Therefore it is fake demand because of problem in non-updatation of the records.

2. If you will ask about your statement, they will not provide and will ask you to visit physically because their software update is going on. So be careful while storing your paid amount receipt. It may help you if BPTP software fails to register some of your few installments.

3. They are not in the position for raising the fresh demand because of software updation.

4. But dont think they are innocent. They will keep blackmailing with new demands like club, PLC, enhanced area, EDC, STP, Substation etc. and they will take out around 7-10 lakh rupees extra from your pocket. You make hue and cry, visit their facility, do morcha and all but the only way to come from all these to file a case against them. Otherwise pay and if you dont pay they will not hand over anything to you.




Ashok
9871320303
User avatar
ashoka2002inin
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby Tarunvohra » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:10 am

As regards STP / Substation demands , we have been reading about this on various forums , but does anyone have a firm basis / document to prove these are Bogus based on which people can come fwd and take action , else BPTP will keep charging interest @18% on outstandings ...and one keeps riding a Taxi with a 18% interest meter down .
User avatar
Tarunvohra
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby rajan » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:07 am

dear tarun vohra
in your last mail u have mentioned about evidences for STP/SUB STATION.YES we have the clinching evidences with us.BUt do you thing it is worth while to post it on the web .This thred has been viewed by, 600 person as per the log,and replies are only 9 out of which 3 are from me.
With such spineless persons reading the thread and just leave it at that ,is it worth to share any information with them.
regards
rajan
User avatar
rajan
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby Tarunvohra » Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:55 am

Dear Mr Rajan

Well quite a lot of people have information on matters on common interest ,butmost is self contained , unless it is shared with the massess how will people get the confidence that Yes there is something conrete to fight ......

Fighting is smaller groups with self contained information makes people an easy prey for people like BPTP to break one by one ..........If you have something concrete please do share it with the masses and yes people will join and fight it out .....But they must know they have weapons to fight ..........

br Tarun
User avatar
Tarunvohra
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby rajan » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:49 am

hi tarun
can you tell me how big a group you are managing or u are a single indivisual.This is necessary for me to understand as to how should we move further.
rajan
User avatar
rajan
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:55 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby saket09 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:40 pm

Any news on the SFIO report due to Delhi HC on Nov 2nd, 2012. It will immensely help other members of this blog community. Thanks
User avatar
saket09
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: HC orders SFIO Investigation for BPTP

Postby ajaynarula » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:27 am

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

23.

CRL.M.C. 13/2012



KABUL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma,
Mr. Rohan Sharma and Ms. Shivanshi Gupta, Advocates


versus



STATE and ANR ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State with SI Sanjeev Kumar, PS
Connaught Place.

Mr. Mohit Mathur with Mr. Amish Dabas, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and

Mr. Devendra Dedha, Advocates for Applicants.

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for Complainant.

Mr. Shivam Garg with Mr. Rama Shankar, Advocates for complainant/
applicant in Crl.M.A. 18370/2012.



AND

24.

CRL.M.C. 31/2012



KABUL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma,
Mr. Rohan Sharma and Ms. Shivanshi Gupta, Advocates





CRL.M.C. 13/2012 and 31/2012 Page 1 of
2




versus

STATE and ANR ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State with SI Sanjeev Kumar, PS
Connaught Place.

Mr. Mohit Mathur with Mr. Amish Dabas, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and

Mr. Devendra Dedha, Advocates for Applicants.

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for Complainant.

Mr. Shivam Garg with Mr. Rama Shankar, Advocates for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN



O R D E R

02.11.2012



CRL.M.A. 17108/2012 IN CRL.M.C. 13/2012

CRL.M.A. 12071/2012 and 17111/2012 IN CRL.M.C. 31/2012



Issue notice.

Learned counsel for non-applicants accept notice. They pray for and
are granted four weeks to file reply-affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, be
filed before the next date of hearing.

List for argument on 18th March, 2013. In the meantime, pleadings
be completed in the present applications.

CRL.M.C. 13/2012

CRL.M.C. 31/2012



List on 18th March, 2013.



MANMOHAN, J

NOVEMBER 02, 2012

rn



CRL.M.C. 13/2012 and 31/2012 Page 2 of
2
User avatar
ajaynarula
GFWA Member
GFWA Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:48 pm

Next

Return to BPTP Parklands Plots Faridabad

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron