City police is likely to take the two Unitech promoters to locations in Uttar Pradesh, which are mentioned as registered addresses in the real estate firm’s documents. Brothers Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, who are managing directors in Unitech, were taken into police custody by city police on Monday on a production warrant from Delhi court.
Interestingly, the two promoters have not been arrested for cases related to project delays and non-delivery but for accepting fixed deposits without permission. The Gurgaon police on Monday took the brothers into custody after obtaining a production warrant.
Although the city police said that they will be questioned in connection with 20 cases registered at various police stations, sources said the duo had been arrested on the complaint of an investor, who had deposited ₹88.74 lakh with the company as fixed deposit but failed to get returns.
A case in this regard has been registered at Udyog Vihar police station under Section 406 of the IPC (pusnihment for criminal breach of trust) and 3/32/14 of HPIDFE Act 2014 on the complaint of Delhi resident Lalit Rastogi.
Although a battery of senior counsels appeared for the two Unitech directors, the additional civil Judge (junior division-cum-judicial magistrate) Amit Nain sent them to five days’ police remand, accepting the contention of the public prosecutor that the duo needed to be taken to Lucknow, Badaun, Sultanpur and Shahjahanpur in Uttar Pradesh. There are other locations across the state where the company has registered as offices and where investments in real estate were made using the money collected from this and other fixed deposits.
Earlier on Monday, Sanjay and Ajay Chandra were produced in court at 11.30 am, after which the police filed an application for joining the investigation in the existing case. They were again produced in court at 2 pm and this time the police sought a 10-day for investigation and questioning in the case.
However, defence lawyers Vishal Gupta and senior counsels argued that this matter was already in the Supreme Court and the terms for bail was that he can’t take money from homebuyers till he is released. The defence argued that the case was built around an amount of ₹88.74 lakhs and they were also ready to give an undertaking that the money would be refunded within two days.
The prosecution, however, argued that Unitech was not a finance company and was bound to seek permission from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) before accepting money or investing in other projects. Also, they argued that this was a criminal case and it needed independent investigation. This contention was upheld by the court.
The police, while examining the records of the Registrar of companies, also found that Unitech was not registered as a finance firm and had no right to accept money from public as fixed deposits.
As per the complaint by Lalit Rastogi, Unitech had put out advertisements for a fixed deposit scheme in September 2012 after which investments were made in his name and that of Anuradha Rastogi to the tune of ₹88.74 lakh. The fixed deposits were due to mature in 2015. However, Rastogi, in his complaint, alleged that despite repeated requests the company defaulted on payments.
Manish Sehgal, ACP, Gurgaon police, said that they are investigating the case. “The two promoters are being questioned in different cases and facts are being verified,” Sehgal said.