[ad_1]
Delhi High Court The directors of the real estate company have been summoned Ansal Properties & Infrastructure for attempting to “conceal facts” from the court and “frustrate” its orders. The directors have been directed to remain personally present in the court on January 23.
“Prima facie”, the real estate developer and a finance company have “not only suppressed material facts and misled this Court, they have also acted in such a manner so as to circumvent/frustrate the order(s) passed by this Court” may be done”, the High Court said in an order passed this week.
advocate for Ansal Properties and finance company, RSD FinanceThe companies have been directed to file the list of directors within two weeks.
The directions were passed on a petition filed by one Suresh Kumar Kakkar and others on the basis of a collaboration agreement executed between him and Ansal Properties in October 2010 for development of about 3.575 acres of land. Gurgaon,
Under the agreement, Ansal was to develop the land by constructing a residential/group housing/commercial colony after obtaining all permissions from the authorities. The company was entitled to dispose of “its share” of the built-up area of the project.
The petitioners alleged that since the developer failed to carry out any development work on the land, they have moved the court seeking that the company be restrained from creating any third party rights over the plots.
In its order, the High Court noted that on the first date of hearing (on January 14, 2022) of the petitioner, a statement was made by the counsel for the developer that status quo with respect to the title and possession of the property shall be maintained. two plots in dispute
The petitioners alleged that despite the undertaking given to the court, third party rights were created by the developer in favor of the finance company.
While ordering status quo with regard to “ownership, possession and construction” of the two plots and observing that the real estate developer and the finance company were “prima facie guilty of concealment of material facts”, the court observed that “there is merit in The contention of the petitioners” is that even if certain transactions are entered into between the developer and the finance company, “the same cannot result in dilution or extinction of the rights of the applicant/petitioners”.
[ad_2]
Source link