Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Dy. Registrar of CHS

  1. #1
    Advocate.sonia's Avatar
    Advocate.sonia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    790

    Default The Dy. Registrar of CHS

    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

    MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



    FIRST APPEAL NO. 852 OF 2008 Date of filing : 17/06/2008

    IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 621 OF 2007 Date of order : 25/03/2009

    DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MUMBAI SUBURBAN



    Mrs.Rekha Uday Prabhu & Ors.

    A-5, Raigad Niketan, Chakala,

    Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. … Appellants/org. complainants

    V/s.

    The Dy. Registrar of CHS & Ors.

    Malhotra House, 6th floor, Opp. GPO,

    Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. … Respondents/org. O.Ps.


    Corum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
    Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

    Present: Mr.Uday Prabhu, Power of Attorney of appellant.

    Mr.D.M. Gosavi, A.R. for the respondents.

    - : ORAL ORDER :-
    Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

    This appeal is filed by appellants/org. complainants against the dismissal order dated 16/05/2008 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint No.621/2007.

    The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-

    The complainants are MIG members of the Raigad Niketan Co-op. Housing Society situated at Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 099. It is alleged by the complainants that Managing Committee members of the Society have mismanaged affairs of the Society and indulged in improper transfer of properties in contravention of the provisions of M.C.S. Act, 1960 and they have committed breach of trust and misappropriation. Therefore, complainants have suffered losses. Vide letter dated 08/09/2006, 08/11/2006 and 16/12/2006 the complainants lodged a complaint with O.Ps. But, O.Ps. failed to perform its statutory duties for more than 187 days and caused delay in taking action on one or other pretexts. The complainants paid Rs.15,000/- as cost/fees for issuing investigation orders. O.Ps. thereafter issued investigation order covering 11 charges on 12/03/2007. The said inquiry was pending for more than 233 days and delay is unexplained. Therefore, it is alleged by the complainants that O.Ps. have intentionally caused delay in initiating and conducting inquiry because large amount of payments were made to their department unjustly and without justifications. O.Ps. instead of carrying out inquiry swiftly have started hatching out a novel plan by insisting on payment of Rs.15,000/- as cost/fees. O.Ps. have been given enough time more than 420 days for initiating inquiry against culprit. However, O.Ps. have failed to perform their duties and therefore, complainants were forced to file a consumer complaint against O.Ps. before the Forum below and the complainants prayed/requested the Forum below to direct O.Ps. to explain the delay of 420 days caused in taking action since 08/09/2007. The complainants had also prayed to direct O.Ps. individually to compensate each of the complainants with Rs.3,600/- per month. The complainants have further prayed to direct O.Ps. to fix time limit to complete the inquiry as per provisions of Section 83 of M.C.S. Act, 1960.

    O.P.Nos.1to3 filed their written statement and contested the claim of the complainants. They denied allegations made by the complainants. They pleaded that the complainants are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, complaint should be dismissed with cost.

    After hearing both the parties and considering the documents and affidavits placed before it, the Learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint and passed the impugned order. Hence, the complainants have filed this appeal.

    We heard Mr.Uday Prabhu, Power of Attorney of appellants and Mr.D.M. Gosavi, A.R. for the respondents.

    The complainants are the members of Raigad Niketan Co-op. Housing Society, which is registered under M.C.S. Act. The complainants had made complaints on 08/09/2006, 08/11/2006 and 16/12/2006 to the O.Ps. against the members of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid society alleging that the members of the Managing Committee have committed mismanagement, improper transfer of property and misappropriation of fund of the society. O.Ps. also asked for Rs.15,000/- from the complainants. The complainants have not deposited Rs.15,000/-, but instead of depositing amount, they have furnished indemnity bond of Rs.100/- duly notarized on 22/02/2007. O.Ps. contended that deposit of Rs.15,000/- as a cost of inquiry under Section 83 of M.C.S. Act, 1960 cannot be treated as a consideration for service as alleged by the complainants. They further contended that the O.Ps. are performing sovereign functions and conducting inquiry as per statutory provisions of the M.C.S. Act, 1960. Conducting of inquiry under Section 83 of M.C.S. Act, 1960 is not a service and the deposit made towards cost of the proceeding cannot be treated as consideration for the same.

    In support of their contentions, O.Ps. have relied upon decision of National Commission in Revision Petition Nos.1414-1421 of 2003 decided on 09/02/2007, wherein it has been held that the Registrar of the Co-op. Societies and the Special Officer are discharging their duties under statutory provisions unconnected with any contract of accepting deposit from the complainants by the Society. They cannot be held personally responsible for non-refund of deposit by the Co-op. Society on the ground that Society was suffering from financial crunch for various reasons including mal-administration of the Society. The Registrar of the Co-op. Societies is not providing any service or facility as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but, he is exercising statutory administrative supervisory control and is discharging quasi-judicial function as provided in the said Act.

    It is the contention of the complainants that they have entered into a contract with the O.Ps. /service provider for conducting inquiry of the financial affairs of the Society on payment of Rs.15,000/- which the complainants have agreed to deposit by furnishing valid undertaking. As per provisions of M.C.S. Act, 1960 it is the statutory obligations on the part of O.Ps. to supervise over the co-operative societies.

    The facts of the present case are similar to the facts stated in the Revision Petition Nos.1414 to 1421 of 2003 decided by the National Commission that conducting inquiry is not a service or facility. O.Ps. are discharging quasi-judicial functions. Therefore, appellants/org. complainants are not consumers under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we are finding that complaint was rightly dismissed. The reasons and findings given by the Forum below are perfectly legal and correct. There is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellants. In the result, we pass the following order :-

    -: ORDER :-

    1. Appeal stands dismissed.

    2. No order as to costs.

    3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





    (S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar)

    Member Presiding Judicial Member

  2. #2
    dilipshah is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default Redevelopment of housing society: Are your flats delivered in time?

    REDEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING SOCIETY: ARE YOUR FLATS DELIVERED IN TIME?

    Builders and developers play vital role in redevelopment of housing societies. Currently, the redevelopment mania of residential properties is booming in full swing and one finds in Mumbai that compound wall of every third property of a society is covered with tins as number of small time builders and real estate companies has joined the battle in an effort to grab a share of this fast rewarding pastry.

    There is also likelihood of delay in completion of such projects followed by numerous complaints from the buyers when flats are not delivered in tine as documented. What do developers do when apartments are not finished on time? Some pay back their clients as part of a penalty clause.

    It is a long ending tussle between builders and home buyers that never seems to end delivering projects on time. There are umpteen cases where builders have taken extra time to finish projects while leaving home buyers to suffer fiscal setbacks.
    Imagine a situation where you have booked a house in an apartment complex while paying hefty EMIs and also the rent for the temporary place that you currently occupy. Any delay in getting into your own house obviously means a financial loss.

    To make ease for the home buyers and to remove rotten from the housing sector, Housing Department is planning to introduce new norms to control the realtors. It has made changes in the draft bill and increase the proposed fine from a maximum of Rs 10 lakh to Rs 1 crore, said Sachin Ahir, Minister of state for Housing.

    According to the Ahir “whereas in the draft bill to control the housing sector Rs. 10L was the maximum fine, on the other side market experts believes that penalty amount is insufficient for the developers.” Due to the several complaints from buyers department has taken it seriously and made the norms to ease it. The new draft states the maximum penalty for an errant builder is Rs one crore.” This decision has been taken on Friday in a meeting which has spearheaded by Ahir and attended by the Gautam Chatterjee, principal secretary housing, and other senior Housing Department officials.

    As per the fresh reports final decision is yet to be taken to the draft which will be tabled in the state legislature for setting up of a Housing Regulatory Authority.

    However, the only change today is that builders now have a penalty clause in their agreements with buyers. But that is not mandatory yet. There have been cases earlier where people have contested builders in courts but in most cases that is a long prolonged battle which not many are willing to go through.

    There are cases where people have complained about delayed possession of apartments but these are not highlighted because there are no effective machineries available to redress their grievances. However, the larger and top class developers have their image to protect and to fulfill their commitment they include a penalty clause in agreements.

    There are numerous causes for delays such as late government approvals, getting the completion certificate after a long wait, raw material delays, cement and steel procurement, manpower delay to list a few. Getting local approvals is a harrowing task and the new Environmental Impact Assessment clearance that is now mandatory can even take up to nine months. At any point in time, there is a 50 to 60 per cent shortfall in unskilled manpower in the market. Civil contractors executing projects have so much on their plate that managing different projects is becoming more and more difficult.

    According to industry watchers, most developers face project delays. About 85-90 per cent projects are delayed in some way or the other and that a lot of the delays are not in the developer’s control. The delays on account of various reasons do affect the overall budget of a developer, increases the construction and storage cost and hit the brand image and future of the company. Of course, it has a direct impact on end-users as well.

    A project in which the buyer has given a minimal advance, the pressure on the developer is far less compared to heavy advance acceptances. The buyer’s capital is stuck and they cannot go anywhere. In such a situation, strict penalty clauses are imposed. This is one reason why clients rely on top class developers who are sure of their deliveries.

    The realty industry experts say that in the last few years, developers have taken up 10 times more projects compared to what they have done in their total lifetime. Have they thought where the availability of the labor, brick, steel and cement is? How will they manage all this? However, there are well-known construction companies who are trying to get more advanced technology for construction to match their deliveries. However, the cost of adopting such technologies in India is still very high and not many developers are able to benefit from it.

    The solution lays in the urban development ministries plans to create a regulator for the real estate sector. The regulator would promote best practices and consumer interest. Where there is a delay, the regulator will ensure that penalty is paid by the developer. The regulator will also be considered as an ombudsman between the buyers and developers.
    The housing societies often get confused about choosing the best or right or so to say, one HONEST builder. There are many cases where the dreams of members of the housing society are crashed when the terms of Development Agreement and time schedule of completion of project is not maintained by such opportune builders of III tier.

    There are types of voracious builders of III tire who have abandoned or have delayed the redevelopment projects due to paucity of inflow or diversion of funds from the assigned projects in order to acquire more and more projects beyond their financial means or are simply not capable to execute the projects due to lack of competency.

    Building a home is a major decision for the lifetime and one would not want to take chances. It is said that till you do not leave your society, you are the KING. The day on which you handover your property to the builder for redevelopment and leave your society, the builder is the KING.

    With regard to the buying of flats/premises in projects other than redevelopment also, there is an upward trend for buying the property. The cut down in interest rate and easy registration process has attracted more property buyers to invest on their dream home.

    Today real estate is one of thriving industries and demand for residential and commercial property is increasing day-by-day. There are number of builders and developers in city who offer or promise special features to attract prospective buyers. However, there are some builders or developers who delay the completion of project and the buyers suffer mentally and financially.

    There are property buyers who say his/her flat’s possession has been delayed by six months or more. Even those of reputed builders get delayed unexpectedly. The properties buyers are the now considered consumers and finally have got a voice and a forum to air their grievances. Using consumer courts, buyers have been able to get back their money with interest or have been financially compensated besides allotment of flats by the sloppy builders.

    In case of delay, the builder is liable to refund the amount paid with interest (for the period of delay) as there has been a breach of contract. A promoter, who constructs or intends to construct either commercial or residential building, shall specify in writing, the date by which possession of the flat is to be handed over.

    In case of delay, as there has been a breach of contract, the builder would attract penalty under both Consumer Protection Act and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. The builders are careless about compensation because there is no detailed written down Real Estate Regulator from the Government as yet, for rigorous punishment to such builders. A consumer doesn’t want to get into a legal tangle and just wants his flat in hand and the unscrupulous builders take advantage of this helplessness.

    Many property aspirers buy an under-construction flat for the convenience of slab-wise payment and lower rates. But is it such a good idea? A Mumbai consumer says her flat's possession has already been delayed by six months. Like her, scores go through the harrowing wait for possession when housing projects-even those of reputed builders-get delayed unexpectedly. To add to their woes, consumers complain that builders rarely offer compensation, leave alone actually doing it out.

    Now, consider the financial implications of delayed possession. A Mumbai consumer who was promised his flat in June 2007 says, "My agreement document clearly says that in case I intend to return the flat over delayed possession, the builder will refund the original amount with 9% interest from the day one he received the payment."

    However, the flat purchaser calls this an impractical solution. "Prices have more than doubled since we booked the flat, so giving it up for just 9% interest does not make sense." Besides, he says, the interest rate on borrowed money has also seen a steep rise. During the unfortunate wait, buyers lose out in other ways too. One, if they don't own another property, they have to stay put in a rented place.

    Two, if they have secured a home loan for the flat, its repayment schedule is treated as pre-EMI (equated monthly installment) till the buyer gets the property's possession. A buyer is entitled to tax rebate under sections 24 (b) and 80 (c) of the Income-Tax Act 1961, after securing possession of the property and thus commencement of EMI. Till then, he gets no tax relief on the pre-EMI.

    Property buyer can present their own cases in consumer courts and do not need to engage a lawyer. The property buyer must file his complaint within two years of the dispute arising, after which it becomes outdated. A written complaint, can be filed before the District Consumer Forum for property value of up to Rupees twenty lakhs, State Commission for value up to Rupees one crore and the National Commission for value above Rupees one crore.

    The builder problems can’t justify the delay. The default on the part of the builder would attract penalty under both Consumer Protection Act and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. Often, the builders have an agreement clause that assures buyers a daily damage for the delayed possession. The buyers must ensure that his agreement for purchase of flat includes the clause compensation from the builder for delay in possession.

    If such compensation clause for delay in possession of flat is included as penalty clause in the agreement for purchase of flat entered between the buyer and the builder i.e. monetary compensation for per day's/per month’s delay, buyer can be sure to get the compensation. The study of recent cases of delayed possession is re-produced below for the awareness of the flat/premises buyers:

    BUILDERS CHEAT EARLY BUYERS, SAYS STATE COMMISSION
    A landmark judgment recently delivered by a State Commission has ensured redress for a harassed Matunga couple. The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Khar-based Monish Builders to pay Arti and Vikas Modi Rs 7.86 lakh as damages and hand over possession of the Chunabhatti flat they had bought in 2006.

    The Consumer forum, while delivering the judgment, said that "When the purchasers complain, the builders show them provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 and willingness to give full refund with interest at 9% from the date they received the money so that after using the flat buyer's money liberally for years, the builder can later sell the flat at much higher rate and pocket huge profit thereafter."

    The Modis booked a 580 sq. ft flat in Mohan Mansion, Chunabhatti, for Rs 22.4 lakh. Over a period of time, the Modis paid the builder Rs 20.18 lakh. They were promised the possession of their flat before June 2007 but when the builder failed to deliver, Modis were forced to rent an apartment for five years.

    The State Commission found the builders guilty of ‘Deficiency in Service’. In 2006, the Modis invested their life savings in a flat, and can't afford to buy one at the present rate, said the commission.

    BUILDER FINED RS. 20 LAKH FOR DELAY: CONSUMER COURTMumbai: In an order that will cheer property buyers. As per the news item appeared in "Times of India, dated 14 June' 2010, Mumbai edition, page 01" the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission recently directed a developer to shell out Rs. 20 lakh at the rate of Rs. 2,000 a day for a delay in giving possession of a shop premises to a purchaser.

    The significance of the order passed by a three-member bench comprising president S B Mhase, S R Khanzode and D Dhamatkar—is that it is “among the first times’’ that “per day’’ damage, as was specified in the sale agreement, has been charged, according to lawyer Bindu Jain. The lawyer represented the aggrieved party, Dharshi Dedhia.

    Often, builders have an agreement clause that assures buyers a daily damage for delayed possession, but few buyers, if any, invoke it, Jain said. The lawyer said the judgment comes as a boost to purchases of flats and other property across the state.

    The commission said, “To issue notice for delivery of possession without an occupation certificate was an illegal act. We find that there is no ground to justify the delay.”

    Dedhia possessed a shop and godown in Rajhans building in Thane as a tenant. The original landlord sold the premises to Padmavati Enterprises who decided to redevelop the property and agreed to give a shop of 366 sq ft to Dedhia at a subsidized rate. The agreement was made in June 2005 to hand over possession in October 2005, but the possession was given in June 2007 that too without an occupation certificate. As a result, Dedhia claimed damages for the delay at Rs. 2,000 per day as stipulated in the agreement.

    Dedhia’s other grievance was that a water connection wasn’t given to him. He took up the matter with the Thane district consumer forum, which ordered the builder to pay him Rs. 20,000 as an additional compensation for the “mental agony and financial loss’’.

    As already pointed out above, there have been innumerable decisions in Consumer Forums concerning builders and flat owners. These decisions have been rendered mostly on the ground of “deficiency in service”. Which expression has been defined in section 2(1) (g) and section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. In cases of delay in giving possession of the flats, the consumer forums have directed the refund of the amount deposited by the potential purchasers with the builder/housing board along with 18 per cent. In another case, besides issuing order for refund of the entire amount of Rs. 1,09,000/- deposited and payment of 18 per cent interest, the builder was also ordered to pay Rs. 1 lakh as further compensation.

    BUILDER WAS DIRECTED TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR DELAYED FLAT DELIVERY
    Mrs. Veena Khanna of New Delhi Vs M/s. Ansal Properties and Adharshila Towers, New Delhi: Before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi: Order dated 9th July 2007

    Due to abnormal delay in handing over the possession of flat, the Complainant had demanded refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 18% which the Opposite party refused to pay. Complainant filed a petition before the State Commission, Delhi. By judgment and Order dt.06-12-2005, the State Commission directed the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.15,00,000 with interest @ 13% p.a. from the date of deposit of the last installment till the date of payment of refund. In the alternative it also directed that if the Opposite Parties choose to handover the possession of the flat, the order of refund with interest will not come into operation.

    Against the above Order of State Commission, the Complainant Mrs. Veena Khanna filed an Appeal in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission praying that the Opposite Parties be directed to deliver the possession of the flat and also compensation for delay in delivery or adequate compensation should be awarded so that she can purchase a flat of the size.

    It was argued that as the afore-quoted order passed by the State Commission gave preferable alternative to the Opposite Parties, and the builder took undue advantage of it and refunded the amount deposited by the complainant with interest, as directed, because of the rise in the prices of the immovable properties.

    Opposite Parties took advantage only because an option was given to either refund the amount or to hand-over possession of the flat and no adequate compensation was awarded. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission commented that if such contentions of refunding of the money with payment of minimal interest are accepted, the builders would earn millions of rupees by delaying the delivery of the possession of the flat for months together for one reason or the other.

    After considering the arguments of the counsels representing both the parties the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission decided that the Complainant is required to be compensated for delay in construction of the flat and for not allotting the same to her. Because of the delay in construction and delay in deciding the matter, it is practically impossible for a retired Govt. employee to purchase a flat at the present price.

    The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission further stated that therefore, there are two alternatives – (a) one is to give adequate compensation for delay and to direct the Opposite Parties to hand-over possession of an alternative flat in the vicinity of the area where the flat was allotted to the Complainant; (b) or secondly, to pay adequate compensation to enable the Complainant to purchase a new flat of the same area in the same or similar locality.

    The Opposite Parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for the period she suffered financially. This was on the presumption that the value of the flat has escalated. However, if the builder considers that compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and fifty thousand) is more or excessive, it would be open to the builder to provide an alternative flat of the size and price agreed, in the same locality or near about, to the complainant for which an appropriate allotment letter will be issued by them in favor of the Complainant within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. If the same is not issued, it shall pay compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant, as directed.

    I repeat, the flat/premises buyers must insist to their builder for inclusion of penalty clause in their Agreement before execution of the same. The builder must deliver the project in time along with 100 per cent transparency in all the dealings.

    He must stick to the promised terms and conditions and pay penalty if the project delivery is late. Trust is the most important element in a society-builder relation and that should be well taken care of by the builder. Get all the promises or agreements made by builder in writing. It should outline the work to be done, date of completion, amenities or facilities promised.

    I, Dilip Shah, am the author of this article and an experienced Senior Counselor and Analyst for Redevelopment of Housing Societies since last many years with in-depth study of integral techniques with exclusively skilled in the various areas of Societies Laws and Redevelopment of Housing Societies.

    There are several instances of incomplete or misleading information prevailing among the Housing Societies and flat owners as well that are planning for redevelopment. Controversial court judgments add to the confusion and such Housing Societies get stuck at some point due to lack of information, knowledge, contact with right kind of counselors, analysts, advisors etc. Many societies do not have conveyance and hence, the entire process can break down in an instant.

    The Resident Members/Managing Committee Members of Housing Societies benefit my counseling and my full fledged Project management consultant to the fullest extent possible and gain valuable insights about the integral technicalities of various laws applicable to the redevelopment.

    I hold direct interaction with the Resident Members/Managing Committee Members on the various parameters that are involved in Redevelopment of Housing Societies and solve most of their problems/provide adequate direction to represent their cases to various Authorities. At present, I have around 60 to 70 Housing Societies on my schedule who avail my services at a point of need.

    I am well adept in Laws governing the Redevelopment of Housing Societies and distinctly experienced in studying and analyzing the entire text of Drafts of Development Agreement, Power of Attorney, Tender Document, Bank Guarantee and Individual Agreement to be executed with each member of the Society generally provided by the Developers/Builders to the Housing Society which are “Builder Friendly”. These drafts after thoroughly scanned and scrutinized by us and the gray areas are exposed and converted in to “Society Friendly” drafts.

    I have published numerous articles on Internet for the benefit of Housing Societies in Mumbai. Please educate yourself and caution your friendly neighbors to be vigilant from Irregularities and illegalities in Redevelopment by the Builders, Illegal gratifications showered by Builders on corrupt members of Managing Committees, Rampant Corruption in BMC, Flagrant violation of Rules and Regulations by the Builders, how to beware of Cheat and Fraud Builders and their criminal and felonious acts.

    1. Planning for redevelopment? Read this……Guidelines on Redevelopment of
    Housing Projects in Mumbai
    2. Format of Indemnity Bond in Form M-20
    3. Letter of Consent for Redevelopment of Housing Societies
    4. Mismanagement by Managing Committees
    5. Section 101 of Maharashtra co-op. Societies act 1960 for recovery of dues from
    defaulting members
    6. Unhealthy and Unlawful practice by certain Developers in Redevelopment of
    Housing Projects in Mumbai
    7. Importance of Indemnity Bond in Form M-20 for Managing Committees
    8. Code of Conducts for Developers: Redevelopment of Housing Societies and old
    Buildings in Mumbai
    9. Long Live Corruption in Redevelopment of Housing Societies in Mumbai
    10. Guidelines for Selection of a good Builder
    11. Busting of Redevelopment Projects of Housing Societies
    12. Redevelopment of Housing Societies: Cessed Buildings in South Mumbai: Bonanza
    of FSI of 3.0 etc.
    13. Code of Conduct for Builders Developers
    14. Compensation to be paid by the Builder for delayed possession of flat
    15. Corruption in Redevelopment
    16. Redevelopment and corrupt Managing Committee Members
    17. Redevelopment of Housing Societies and Sand Shortage
    18. Redevelopment of Housing Societies: are Govt. Guidelines really persuasive and
    convincing?
    19. Faults, Facts and Fundamentals about Redevelopment of Housing Societies
    20. Redevelopment of Housing Societies.....what is Redevelopment that every Society
    wants to know?
    21. Article series in Redevelopment of Housing Societies - Procedures for recording
    the minutes of various Meetings
    22. Are your flats delivered in time?

    Dilip Shah
    Senior Counselor and Analyst for Redevelopment of Housing Societies
    dilip7shah@gmail.com
    9819825752, 32411533

  3. #3
    Unregistered Guest

    Post Society Manager

    Dear Sir,

    When society appoints any Manager for working of Societies. Sometimes the Committee Members are not paying him salary on time. They cheat to Manager and society members also. I have experience about that in Mazgaon Society. After six month also I have not received my 1 and half month salary.

    This is totally cheating. they take work by Manager and they says always excuses of Management.

    Please look into this matter. I want your support to release my salary. Society

    Madan-8655627338

  4. #4
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Hsg Society forcibly charging Cultural Contribution

    HI

    MY PARENTS SOCIETY IN KANDIVALI(E) HAVE DECIDED IN THE AGM THAT THEY WILL CHARGE 50/PM WHICH COMES UPTO RS. 600P.A. TOWARD CONTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL PROGRAMMS HELD BY THE SOCIETY.

    fAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW CAN A SOCIETY FORCE ANYONE TO PAY COMPULSARILY, MY PARENTS DO NOT TAKE PART IN ANY OF THE EVENTS AND THEY ARE ALSO TOO OLD TO DO SO.

    PLEASE ADVISE THE PROCEDURE TO STOP THIS CHARGES

  5. #5
    shivshankar damani Guest

    Post Flagrant Violations of State Laws and Financial Scam in the Redevelopment Project Scam of Refinery V

    From: Shiv Shankar Damani
    A-2, Refinery View Chs Ltd 62/63, Maroli Church Road,Chembur,Mumbai-400074.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respected Sir,
    Till Today No Action taken any Competent Authority & Government Department against illegal Managing Committee.
    I would like to seek opinion regard to Redevelopment of Housing Society Matter,

    SUBJECT:- :_ Flagrant Violations of State Laws and Financial Scam in the Redevelopment Project Scam of Refinery View CHS Ltd, by Black Listed Builders of Supreme Court & BMC Mumbai. Patel Engineering Ltd , Plot no 62/63,Maroli Church R C Marg,Chembur,Mumbai-400074.

    LIST OF DETAILS:-
    NO Survey of flat area carried out before signing and registering the DA. Society Plot area measurement flat carpet area and plot area not certified by society’s Architect & Advocate. ‘No Architect appointed by the society.
    No proactive participation of responsible parties.
    Discrimination among own society members.
    No genuine certified advice from PMC- Advocate. Managing Committee & architect
    No Transparency
    No general body meeting was called and ever held for the approval of D.A
    No Protection available under any state Law.
    Developer friendly DA & not society friendly.
    Supreme court of India and High court and Co-op court have given judgments to protect the legal rights & financial rights of society members totally ignored by the MC.
    Approval of Patel eng ltd on 07.05.2011 in the society office in presence of Mr.Yellary office Dy Registrar M ward
    1st draft copy of DA send time in july 2011 discussed with in MC .DA rejected as sent by Patel Eng Ltd around 20pts of clarification were needed This DA discussed in AGM on 15.8.2011 house rejected this DA.
    Then came 2nd DA and then 3rd DA boths were rejected.
    4th DA came sent to society members some times in January /Feb 2012 members were informed that they can send queries.
    Answer on the queries came copies of this send to Society Members
    On 01.4.2012 SGM held in society to discuss layout plan send by Patel Eng Ltd . Plan 2 approved .PMC & ADV & Kunal Lala Rep. Patel Eng Ltd were present circular send to society members does not give any information on plan 2
    On 07.06.2012 consent taken from some members on approval of DA on plain paper typed ( This copy was given to us by Dr.K@@@@agale Pune)
    On 10.07.2012 DA signed & registered by the illegal M.C.
    On 01.04.2012 2 Members resigned – 2memebrs were coopted so now there are total 4 coopted members in 7 members committee .
    This formation of MC declared as violation of sec 129 MSc 1960 by Dy Registrar M ward investigation report dt___ and Addl Regsitrar Pune Dr Khandagale investigated report Dt 25TH July 2013
    The contents of this New DA were found to be totally different from the contents of Tender documents & copy of the 4th DA sent to society members
    DA Tainted – Doctored Tempered and altered
    Complaints lodged to various Govt authorities from time to time
    Complaint against increase in area of secretary and Adv Jagtap registered with Dy registrar-M Ward
    08.2.2012 Adv N Jagtap in presence of Dr Khandagale.Pune confirmed that he is only representing 7 MC members
    All society members had contributed toward his payments .
    On 1st week Nov 2012 50% corpus distributed to some society members indemnity bond was signed by these members. No SGM was called for to discuss the contents of the indemnity bond.Even while the final hearing had not concluded with Addl Registrar Pune .
    Aggrieved members who were lodging complaints Were declared on anti-social elements these members lodged complaint at RCF Police station,Chembur,Mumbai-400074
    The MC hid the fact that the builder Patel Eng ltd is Blacklisted by Supreme Court of India and other govt agencies including BMC –Mumbai for financial golmal.
    The 5 year Term of the illegal managing committee expired on 8.6.2013. from 9.6.2013 this M.C is simply caretaker MC with no powers to take any redevelopment decisions as per the information from the Federation of Co-op Societies ,Vikas building,Fort,Mumbai. No election have been held from 9.6.2013.
    On 18.1.2014 new plan very different from the plan 2 of 01.4.2012 was gotten approved in the SGM held at chembur Gymkhana AT around 8pm.
    No discussion of signed DA. No Architect . No feasibility report. Not honoring government regulatory order. Not honouring Supreme Court & High court Judgments on Redevelopment . Financial fraud and area fraud on fungible FSI. irrevocable license & Irrevocable POA given to builder which is against state laws no discussion held as required under section 79 (A) . misrepresentation of flats area in DA, Unfair trade parcties. the draft of all the relevant documents pertaining to the redevelopment process not circulated to all members.
    Government of Maharashtra notification on 6.1.2012 bearing no MH/MR/South-346/2011-B .The committee members who otherwise will be held responsible to make good the loss u/s.73 (1B) of MSC Act 1960 as they have signed the indemnity bond


    NO GBM were ever held to discuss every aspect of the work.
    Flagrant violation of rules & regulation by the builders – PMC & Advocate.
    On 15.1.2014 letters of complaints on fraud send to MC of the Society – the letter was endorsed by Chairman /Secretary .
    Till date No reply in writing received
    The free fungible FSI 35% totally is missing in the registered DA.this area is siphoned and swallowed by the builder. This is against the state laws. & BMC notification and directives under DCR 2012
    The extra area offered 25% is totally missing in the plan send to the society members
    The plot area shown in the plan is less than the plot area shown in the DA.
    The setback area shown in the plan is less than the setback stated in DA.
    This set back area benefit this M.C has gifted to the builder.
    No architect – appointed, no feasibility report ,NO Transparency , NO advocate to represent society members.
    Signed DA not send to individual members .
    NO SGM held to discuss DA- distribution of corpus fund and indemnity bond
    Copies of investigation report received from Dy registrar & Addl registrar not send to society members.
    illegal levy of charges on Aggrieved members .Managing committee refuses to honour the Dy Registrar M-Ward Judgement on this issues .order dated:_____
    Sec 79 (A) violated
    Sec 73 (1B) violated
    No procedure followed as per state law-co-op law these have been successfully violated.
    The society plot area worth around 150 Crores gifted to builder.
    SGM of 01.4.2012 declared violation of state law violation of 79(A) .Breach of trust and faith
    Irrecoverable license & Irrecoverable POA –NO General body meeting called to discuss this .This is violation of State laws Co-op Laws and BMC Notification and directives .

    Thanking you,
    Regards

    Shiv Shankar Damani/Satish Bali/Rashpal Singh/Smt.Bimla Devi//Vinod Sukhwani.

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-31-2013, 03:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •