Only an hour after being sent to jail by a Delhi magistrate for flouting the judicial process to the extent of making a “mockery” of it, an owner and two top executives of realty firm Unitech were granted bail in a cheating and misappropriation case by a sessions court.
The three top officials – Ramesh, Sanjay and Ajay Chandra — had been sent to 14 days judicial custody by additional chief metropolitan magistrate Gaurav Rao in relation to a case filed by Noida residents – chartered accountant Sanjay Kalra and his business partner Devesh Wadhwa.
Within an hour of the order to send the Chandras and another director of the firm to jail for two weeks, their advocate Vijay Agarwal approached the district judge for bail, and the case was marked to an additional sessions judge.
ASJ VK Yadav, who was apprised with the matter, allowed the Chandras interim bail for three days.
The interim bail was granted on the condition that each of the three top executives deposit personal bonds worth Rs 1 lakh and a surety of like amount.
During the hearing, the Chandras’ advocate also furnished a no-objection –certificate filed by one of the complainants, Wadhwa, who was present in court in view of Unitech’s undertaking to pay the settlement amount.
The ASJ also noted that the “counsel for the accused says they are ready and willing to honour their undertaking... with regard to the payment to be made to the complainant.”
The complainants had come to court saying that they had bought a plot in Unitech’s development Habitat Apartments in Greater Noida, but had neither been given their property due to delay in construction. A State Consumer Forum had ruled that the realty firm should pay Kalra and Wadhwa back along with 11% simple interest by October last year.
When the company failed to follow the order, the complainants moved court against the three top directors and director Minoti Bahri.
In his detailed order sending them to jail, the court said “the accused have made a mockery of the (judicial) process” by their conduct and refused to accept the company’s plea that it was undergoing “financial hardship”.
“The accused persons by their conduct have made a mockery of the entire process of law,” the ACMM had said in his order. He had added that the company’s plea of financial hardship “does not inspire confidence”.
He had also noted that Unitech had previously been summoned in the case, and had previously agreed to settle the matter but still it remained pending.
“There is no guarantee that they will abide by their undertaking/ honour their statement, if any, regarding settlement because their past conduct/ records speak for themselves,” the ACMM had noted.
However, the sessions court that allowed them interim bail till January 14.
Repeated attempts to reach Unitech authorities for a response failed.