A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit found that Amrapali group had siphoned off homebuyers’ money with the connivance of Greater Noida and Noida authorities and cancelled their registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, and also directed the National Building Construction Corporation to take over its pending construction projects in Greater Noida and Noida.
The bench has directed the Enforcement Directorate to initiate action against the Amrapali directors and authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and to keep updating the Court about the same. Banks and financial institutions have been directed to recover their dues from Amrapali assets other than project properties. Senior Advocate R Venkataramani has been appointed as the court receiver in respect of the project properties.
With a fixed commission of 8%, the NBCC will complete the stalled Amrapali Projects and homebuyers will deposit the remaining amount in escrow account.
The Supreme Court was informed by the Greater Noida Authority that four of the five projects of the Amrapali Group, in its jurisdiction, were vacant lands without any construction. The authority said it received only Rs. 363 crore out of the Rs. 3400 crore of outstanding dues from the Group. The homebuyers have also filed several pleas seeking possession of 42000 flats.
The Court had reserved its verdict on May 10th when the Noida and Greater Noida authorities submitted that they lacked the expertise and resources to complete the projects and requested the court to hand over the project to a reputed builder.
The Apex Court had, in March 2018, allowed the Delhi Police to arrest Amrapali Group Chairman and Managing Director Anil Sharma and Directors, Shiv Priya and Ajay Kumar. They are in the custody of the Uttar Pradesh Police since last October and are being kept in a Noida hotel under police surveillance till investigation against the company is completed. They are accused of being uncooperative with forensic auditors examining financial transactions entered into, by the company and its directors.
Courtesy/By: Dipsi Soni
|
24 Jul 2019
