HC grants bail to developers booked for duping flat buyers

The court also initiated a suo motu contempt proceedings against the developers for breaching their earlier undertakings with the court, in which they assured to complete construction, and open designated bank accounts to protect the interests of homebuyers and the landowner, and deposit security funds

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to two developers, Jignesh Goradia and his wife, Pankti Goradia, accused of cheating and forgery in the sale of flats at the Maple Carniva project in Ulwe, while initiating a suo motu contempt proceedings against the couple for breaching their earlier undertakings with the court, in which they assured to complete construction, and open designated bank accounts to protect the interests of homebuyers and the landowner, and deposit security funds.

Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

According to the prosecution, the incident dates back to 2017, when the Goradias, through their firm M/s Shreeji Associates, allegedly illegally sold 17 flats belonging to the landowner, Vishrut Enterprises Pvt. Ltd’s share in the Maple Carniva project by misusing a Power of Attorney issued by the firm. A bank that had financed 31 flats in the project also discovered that several mortgaged flats had been sold using forged or fabricated documents, leading to losses exceeding ₹5.65 crore. At the same time, homebuyers also complained of non-possession and incomplete construction despite paying nearly the full price.

Subsequently, a case was registered against the couple and in 2018, the high court granted provisional bail to the couple for settling disputes with the landowner and completing the construction of flats within 120 days. They had also undertaken to deposit ₹5.9 crore in designated bank accounts and finish the remaining construction work of the flats, including installing lifts, fire-fighting systems, and parking facilities.

“The breach is not technical or inadvertent,” the court observed. “It strikes at the core of the basis on which the court granted provisional bail. The applicants secured liberty by promising performance, then disregarded those promises entirely.”

In their defense, the couple argued that most of the flats had been occupied and there was no cooperation from the occupants to complete the remaining construction, which the court rejected.

“The obligation was personal and unconditional. A party that seeks the indulgence of the court by giving a solemn undertaking cannot later evade its consequences by blaming others,” Justice Borkar said.