1. Gurugram property fraud case: Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra fails to get bail

Gurugram property fraud case: Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra fails to get bail

Sanjay Chandra and his brother Ajay Chandra have moved the apex court against the August 11 order of the Delhi High Court that refused to grant interim bail to them and rather asked them to file status report.

By: | New Delhi | Published: August 17, 2017 4:56 AM
Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra, Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra bail, Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra refuses for interim bail, Gurugram property fraud case A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra has asked Sanjay Chandra to file the status report before it heard its interim bail plea. (Source: IE)

Refusing to grant interim bail to real estate firm Unitech’s promoter Sanjay Chandra in a fraud case relating to a Gurugram-based project, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked him to file a list of buyers who have been refunded the money they had invested in its different projects and how many of them have been allotted alternate flats. A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra has asked Chandra to file the status report before it heard its interim bail plea. It also posted the matter for further hearing on Friday.

Sanjay Chandra and his brother Ajay Chandra have moved the apex court against the August 11 order of the Delhi High Court that refused to grant interim bail to them and rather asked them to file status report.

Five buyers of the Unitech’s Anthea Floors Wildflower Country project led by Delhi residents led by Arjun Bedi and others had filed a complaint for registration of FIR against the company in 2015. Later, 90 more complaints were received against the firm for the same project which were clubbed with the FIR.

Almost after two years, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police had arrested the real estate investment company’s both managing directors for failing to complete the housing project on time in Gurugram’s Sector 70. The police had also restrained them from getting bail in the matter, according to the petition. They were booked under section 406, 409 (breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 120 (b) (concealing criminal offence) of the Indian Penal Code.

  1. S
    Sivathanu M
    Aug 17, 2017 at 10:07 pm
    The two directors have not committed any crime since the amounts were received by the limited company "Unitech Ltd" and the company failed to fulfill its obligations due to unforeseen recession in the real estate industry. "Motive" is the sine quo non for attributing "crime" against the directors of the company and hence the two directors have not committed any crime since they have no motive to cheat the flat buyers and there is only an "error of judgement" in doing business by the directors and the limited company has assets to repay the flat buyers. No doubt the flat buyers are suffering and they should be compensated in the manner known to law and that does not mean the two sincere directors who are anxious to repay the amount should be languishing in jail jeopardizing the interest of all concerned. Hence in these type of cases, a lenient view deserves to be taken taking into account the interest of all concerned instead of imprisonment of the directors
    Reply
    1. S
      Sivathanu M
      Aug 17, 2017 at 10:04 pm
      The two directors have not committed any crime since the amounts were received by the limited company "Unitech Ltd" and the company failed to fulfill its obligations due to unforeseen recession in the real estate industry. "Motive" is the sine quo non for attributing "crime" against the directors of the company and hence the two directors have not committed any crime since they have no motive to cheat the flat buyers and there is only an "error of judgement" in doing business by the directors and the limited company has assets to repay the flat buyers. No doubt the flat buyers are suffering and they should be compensated in the manner known to law and that does not mean the two sincere directors who are anxious to repay the amount should be languishing in jail jeopardizing the interest of all concerned. Hence in these type of cases, a lenient view deserves to be taken taking into account the interest of all concerned instead of imprisonment of the directors
      Reply

      Go to Top