SAROJ DEVI SHARMA Vs. PREMIA PROJECTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S This petition has been filed under Section 73(4) under Companies Act, 2013. As per averments, the pplicant was lured into a scheme floated by the Respondents for booking a Corporate Studio, assuring .12.5% returns on down payment. The petitioner was taken, in by the several advertisements in newspapers, internet, hoardings TV and radio channels glorifying Mr. Tarun. Sb.ic.nb, the man behind the project, as a property guru having great expertise in the construction industry and promising to give good returns. Taken in by the huge advertisements specifically in respect of Premier Corporate City being developed in Knowledge Park 5, Greater Noida (West) , UP, the applicant paid a total, sum of Rs. 1.8,28,61.0 vide two disburses of Rs. 1,82,86.1/- and Rs. 16,45,749/- on 27.02.2013 and 13.03.2013 respectively. As per the agreement dated 22.03.201.3 executed by the Respondent, she was assured of a regular payment of Rs. 1.8,477/-per month w.e.f. 02.03.2013 for a period of 50 months or till possession, whichever was later. A bank guarantee was also furnished by the respondents which however lapsed after 1 year. The respondent paid the assured amount less TDS till April, 2016. Thereafter, they defaulted in making the assured remittances. The bank guarantee was also not renewed as promised. Even, the TDS on the last 4 instalments paid was not deposited with the Tax Authority.

(2.) The petitioner pursued her grievance with the respondents who falsely assured her that the monthly returns worild be credited directly to her bank account through RTGS. On making enquires, the petitioner also learnt that the respondent had wrongly asserted that they were in possession of 15 acres of land situated in Knowledge Park 5, Greater Noida (West) and that they had all statutory permissions and approved layout and building plans to develop the project under the name and style of Premia Corporate City. All the aforesaid information given by the Respondents to the petitioner and the public at the time of booking turned out to be false, and therefore no construction commenced even after 4 years of launch of the project.

(3.) The petitioner further learnt that the Respondent Company was neither the owner of the property nor had any sanction for development of the project. The said land was infact allotted to IVl/s. Solitaire In.fomed.ia Private Limited, a subsidiary company of the Respondent Com.pa.ny, which did not have any sanctioned plans as on the date of the agreement. A follow up with the SFIO has not yielded any result. The petitioner had alleged that the affairs of the Respondent company were conducted fraudulently by the Directors of the company with the intention to cheat and deceive people by falsely inducing them to invest (heir money in a project for which there was no hope of getting possession. All investments, including that of the petitioner have been misappropriated by the respondent com pan) '. As per a report published in newspapers, the respondent company had raised almost 1.750 crorcs for its two projects.