Three Sushma Buildtech officials have been booked for allegedly selling four commercial units in Zirakpur to another buyer despite allotting them to a Panchkula woman and taking ₹60 lakh from her in December 2023.
Police registered the case against Binder Pal Mittal, authorised signatory of Sushma Buildtech and directors Prateek Mittal, and Bharat Mittal under Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the complaint filed by Saroj Goyal, wife of late advocate Rajinder Goyal, the company allotted her four commercial units measuring a combined 461.387 sq ft at Sushma Chandigarh Infinium in Bishangarh, Bishanpura and two in Zirakpur, through an allotment letter dated December 2, 2023.
Goyal alleged that she paid ₹60 lakh to the company the same day through two cheques of ₹30 lakh each. She also entered into a builder-buyer agreement with the company on December 2, followed by a supplementary agreement on December 5.
She alleged that the company had assured her rental returns of 1% per month, payable quarterly, until possession of the units was handed over. However, she claimed that no such payment was made.
{{/usCountry}}She alleged that the company had assured her rental returns of 1% per month, payable quarterly, until possession of the units was handed over. However, she claimed that no such payment was made.
{{/usCountry}}Goyal’s husband, who was undergoing cancer treatment, died on April 4, 2025. She later moved to Panchkula to stay with her son and contacted the company regarding the pending rental returns and status of the units.
She alleged that she then learnt that the four units allotted to her had already been sold to another person.
Goyal alleged that the company officials took her money despite knowing that the units would not be handed over to her and retained the ₹60 lakh without providing the units or the promised returns.
Police are investigating the allegations, including the claim that the same commercial units allotted to Goyal, were later sold to another buyer. The complainant has sought recovery of ₹60 lakh along with the amount allegedly due under the agreement.
The allegations against the accused are yet to be established through investigation.