Saturday, 19 December 2015

Indian Judiciary: Too much power, too little justice

How many people get justice through the judicial system in India? Probably much less than 1%. The judicial system is so formal and technical that a common person cannot access it without the costly help of lawyers. Less than 20% of people can afford lawyers. The 78% (according to the Arjun Sengupta Committee report) who live on less than Rs 20 per day obviously cannot afford lawyers.

Even those who can access the judiciary through lawyers are usually frustrated by the long, laborious and expensive process which takes years or even decades to conclude, during which the litigant gets exhausted- physically and financially.

Many of those who get their cases heard relatively quickly, are faced by uncaring, incompetent or corrupt judges. Such people lose their faith in justice itself.

The problem is that the judicial system in India was set up by the British for their own ends (punish the ‘criminal’ natives and settle disputes between the British gentry residing here). It was not designed as an instrument of justice for the people of this country.

Thus, those who finally manage to get justice from the system are probably far less than 1% of the population.

The problem is that the judicial system in India was set up by the British for their own ends (punish the ‘criminal’ natives and settle disputes between the British gentry residing here). It was not designed as an instrument of justice for the people of this country.

Thus, for effective judicial reforms i.e. to have a judicial system which functions as an effective instrument of justice for the people, we need to re-think and re-design the judicial system. For this we need courts/ dispute resolution forums which can be accessed even by the poor and can quickly decide disputes without unnecessary formality. To ensure the integrity and impartiality of such courts, the appointment of judges and their functioning must be transparent and they must be accountable to the people through credible independent bodies.

Krishnaraj Rao

Friday, 20 November 2015

Redevelopment: Lies, Damned Lies and Minutes of Meetings

20th November, 2015, Mumbai: In most cooperative societies, minutes of general body meetings have some half-truths and omissions, but Mulund’s Shree Gurukrupa Nagar Cooperative Housing Society shows how minutes drafted with blatant lies can easily escape detection by the general body! The draft minutes of a crucial SGM held on 24th May 2014, authored by Shree Gurukrupa Nagar Secretary Sanjay Jadhav and Chairman Anil Shah, pass off their illegal decisions favouring builders as general body decisions.


At the SGM held on 24th May 2014, the society members followed the recommendations of PMC Atul Mehta and signed a consent selecting Siresukan Realty and Bharat Jain alias Talesara as the builder for their redevelopment. Accordingly, the managing committee issued a Letter Of Intent (LOI) in favour of Bharat  Jain / Talesara, partner, Siresukan Realty. See the following documents:


The minutes circulated three days later tells four blatant lies:

1)      It claims that the draft minutes of 24th May 2014 were passed by a resolution at the meeting held on 24th May 2014. In other words, the draft minutes circulated on 27th May were passed three days earlier! This is not a mistake, it is deliberate, because the office-bearers avoid placing the minutes before the general body on any later date!

2)      It claims that PMC recommended “Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP” at the meeting. False! PMC recommended Siresukan Realty, which is supposedly a partnership firm of the brothers Bharat Jain and Mukesh Jain, and not Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP, which is wholly owned by Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal.

3)      It claims that members consented to Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP. False! They signed a consent in favour of Bharat Jain and Siresukan Realty, and not Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP.

4)      It claims that managing committee issued a Letter Of Intent (LOI) in favour of Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP. False! LOI was issued to Bharat Jain and Siresukan Realty.

The general body meeting held on 24th May 2014 endowed the development rights on Bharat Sukanraj Jain alias Talesara, an estate agent posing as a builder. Within three days, Talesara sold the development rights to Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal of Concrete Group of builders, in return for nine percent of the profits, and they went on to form Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP two months later! The office-bearers of Shree Gurukrupa Nagar are clearly part of this deal.

The only hitch is that seven out of the 72 members of Shree Gurukrupa Nagar, who are conscious of their rights, refuse to be bought and sold like cattle.


When cooperative housing societies go for redevelopment, the society’s elected office-bearers become pro-builders and anti-members. Flat-owners get a sinking feeling when the chairman, secretary and treasurer start arguing on the side of builders, ignoring their responsibility to represent the society member’s interest. Shree Gurukrupa Nagar Cooperative Housing Society is a shining example. This video shows Secretary Sanjay Jadhav flatly refusing to negotiate with the builder to raise his offer-price for purchase of any flat from Rs 14,000/- per square foot to the prevailing market price of Rs 20,000/- per sq. ft. When the member, Amisha Gandhi, points out that she recently sold a flat to her brother-in-law at Rs 20,000/- per sq. ft., he responds by saying, “It is your personal matter”.

Any member who dares to ask pointed questions at a meeting is told to keep quiet. He is shouted at and ridiculed by the office-bearers and builders seated on the dais, plus their stooges in the general body! It is an unequal fight. See this video here Amisha Gandhi stands alone as she is hounded at a Special General Meeting. This meeting was supposedly convened for showing builders’ documents for answering queries raised by her group in writing!

The majority of the society’s members, like Mahatma Gandhi’s three monkeys, follow a policy of “See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil”; they believe that their ignorance is bliss, and that there is no need to read any documents before signing on them. Like herds of cattle being led to a slaughterhouse, they continue to believe that there is safety in numbers. Amazing? Yes, amazing, but such herd-mentality is the norm in cooperative housing societies. And that is why redevelopment deals generally tilt in favour of builders, and against the interests of flat-owners.

Krishnaraj Rao

Previous press releases on related topics:

Friday, 13 November 2015

Steps to improve the working of Collegium System

The Secretary
Department of Justice, Govt of India
New Delhi.

Suggestions to improve the working of Collegium System for appointing/elevating High Court and Supreme Court judges

Dear Sir,
Thank you for soliciting public opinion on this important issue. Appointment and elevation of judges of the higher judiciary is indeed the key to ensuring efficient and unbiased administration of justice for citizens of India.
My humble suggestions are as below:

1)    Judges desirous of being selected, elevated or transferred should be required to formally apply to the collegium, clearly stating their own eligibility for such selection or elevation.
2)    Individual members of the collegium may propose or support eligible candidates for selection, elevation, transfer to a different High Court etc., but this should be done in writing to the chief of that collegium (Chief Justice) and their recommendations etc. must be placed on record.
3)    The chief of the collegium may also propose eligible candidates, but to prevent him from abusing his pre-eminent position, candidates proposed by him must be independently scrutinized by other collegium judges, and their opinions (whether favourable or adverse) must be placed on record.
4)    The proposed candidates should be shortlisted by the collegium secretariat based on independently verifiable factors such as rate of case-disposal, length of tenure in the present and previous positions, complaints, etc.
5)    The income and assets of High Court and Supreme Court judges and their close relatives should be regularly appraised by the Comptroller and Accountant General (CAG) to ensure that (a) true accounts are being rendered and (b) asset growth is within the bounds of official income sources. Judges about whom CAG raises red flags must not be considered eligible for any elevation until CAG’s questions are satisfactorily answered, and the investigation is complete.
6)    Judges about whom CAG raises red flags must be transferred at the earliest to another High Court in order to break any existing nexus, and to facilitate independent investigations, unhindered by the influential position of the judge.
7)    Judges found to be lobbying, engaging in backroom-politics and/or trading favours with influential persons (including senior counsels, judges, ministers, bureaucrats, party leaders, business magnates, etc.) for procuring preferential treatment from the collegium must be sent a stern warning letter by the chief of the collegium for the first offence, disqualified from applying to the collegium for three years in case of a second offence, and permanently debarred from elevations in case of a third offence.
8)    All elevations and selections must be made by an independently verifiable process, minimizing the scope for subjective elements of favouritism, nepotism, political appointments, etc.
9)    Any collegium judge who shows tendencies of over-ruling or short-circuiting the due process must be debarred from further participation in the collegium.
10) All meetings of the collegiums should be video-recorded with good audio quality. Decisions of the collegium must reflect scrupulous following of due-process and best practices.
11) All the above-mentioned documents and audio-recordings of the collegiums and candidates must be available to citizens from the Collegium Secretariat under Right To Information Act. Ideally, such documents should be routinely uploaded on the website of the respective High Court or Supreme Court, and available through a simple net-search.

Collegium Secretariat
1)    Collegium Secretariat should be a single centralized organization headquartered in New Delhi, with offices in every High Court. Secretariat in each state should be headed by a team of senior bureaucrats who are suitably insulated from pulls and pressures by judges, lawyers, ministers, etc. It must support the Collegium in its decision-making with all the background-data of candidates, as well as objective comparison and analysis of the data along various parameters.
2)    Secretariat must maintain eligibility records of each and every judge of the higher judiciary, as well as judges, senior advocates and others who apply for judgeship in the higher judiciary. It must independently scrutinize each and every candidate and his/her background, and maintain records of his progress. It must also give ratings to these candidates based on case-disposal rates, number of cases where their judgments have been reversed by higher forum on appeal, and other such parameters.
3)    Secretariat must be well-staffed, well equipped, well-funded and suitably empowered to maintain scrupulous records of the proceedings of the collegium, as well as eligibility of each and every judge in the system, as well as senior advocates etc. who have declared themselves desirous of being considered as candidates for judgeship.

Eligibility criteria
1)    Short-term elevations to the position of chief justice of various High Courts, just for the sake of rendering the candidate eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court, must be expressly forbidden.
2)    Suitable criteria must be proposed by the Supreme Court Collegium, made into an enactment after passing through the houses of Parliament, and scrupulously implemented by the Collegium Secretariat and Ministry of Justice. Making the criteria a law would serve as a way to prevent “moving goal-posts” for favouring some candidates.

1)    Suitable rules and formats may be evolved for receiving complaints against individual judges, and integrating it into the eligibility criteria.
2)    Suitable laws may also be made to prevent frivolous complaints against judges by parties with vested interest, but also to facilitate the independent investigation of complaints if found to have substance.

Sir, I trust these suggestions and recommendations will be considered and acted upon with due seriousness, to make the Collegium system conducive to the administration of justice for all citizens of India. If necessary, I will be available to depose before a parliamentary committee of the rationale behind these suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

Krishna H Rao

Thursday, 5 November 2015

How PMCs undervalue redevelopment projects & generate black money

Figures manipulated to show Rs 110 cr. profits as Rs 12 cr. only

5th November, 2015, Mumbai: Builders usually underplay the monetary value of their redevelopment projects so that they can offer tiny amounts as bank guarantees, and so that they can evade income-tax and earn pots of money in cash. Mulund’s Shree Gurukrupa Nagar Cooperative Housing Society seems to be a live example. Project Management Consultant Atul Mehta wrote in his project report ( ) that the builders, Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP, would earn a profit of only Rs 12.14 crore after building over one lakh square feet!

If the PMC’s report is to be believed, the three LLP partners -- namely Anuj Desai, Nilesh Dalal and Bharat Talesara -- would together earn the market price of 8 to 12 flats after slogging for a couple of years to get all the necessary building permissions, and then another 2-3 years constructing over 160 flats totaling one lakh square feet, and then handing over new flats to 72 original society members, and finally marketing the remaining 80 or 90 flats to recover the money that they invested. Only after the last 8 to 12 flats are sold, the builders will finally make their profits! Poor fellows.

But don’t you find this a bit hard to believe? Take a re-look at the figures.

Firstly, the PMC’s feasibility report says that only 60,077 sq. ft. can be sold by the builders. But the builders’ Partnership Agreement, an internal document, states that the total area is 1,07,772 sq. ft. of which 67,000 sq. ft is available for sale i.e. 11.5 per cent more saleable area. This makes it much more profitable!

Secondly, the sale price as mentioned as Rs 14,000/- per sq. ft. in the Partnership Agreement and also in the PMC’s feasibility report, is a half-truth. The other part of the truth is revealed by page 33 of Shree Gurukrupa Nagar’s Development Agreement which says that if society members wish to buy more space, then the price is Rs 24,300/- per sq. ft. The Agreement also says that if the society members want less space than their entitlement, the builders will buy their space @ Rs 14,000/- per sq. ft. So, the real minimum sale price of the Sale Component cannot be Rs 14,000/-, it is at least Rs 24,300/- per sq. ft. Another big jump in profits!

In fact, the real profits appear to be nine times higher than the PMC’s estimate!

Real Profit Calculation

What is the Cost of a redevelopment project? It is the total of the costs of its Rehabilitiation Component and its Saleable Component:

A. COST = Rs 55.89 crore (18.37 plus 37.52 cr)
1.      Cost of Rehab component = Rs 18.37 crore (17.50 crore plus 87.5 lakhs) Explanation: Stamp duty of Rs 87.5 lakhs was paid on the project @ 5 percent calculated on the consideration to be paid to society members. The consideration amount was adjudicated at Rs 17.5 cr, based on all the considerations given (or to be given) to the flat owners by the builders in cash or kind, and/or Ready-reckoner rates of the land. Rs 17.5 cr may be considered as the total cost price of the rehabilitation-component to Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP, including construction cost, corpus fund, rent and brokerage for alternative accommodation, shifting charges, and other incidentals. (Please note that we have made allowance for a couple of crore rupees more than the PMC’s estimate.)
2.      Cost of Sale component = Rs 37.52 crore (27.11 plus 10.41 cr) Explanation: Construction cost @ Rs 4000/- per sq. ft. as mentioned in the Partnership Agreement, on 67,772 square feet is Rs 27.11 cr. This includes architects’ and other professional fees and incidental costs. To this amount, we add the cost of buying TDR i.e. Rs 10.41 crore as per the feasibility report.  (Please note, we are assuming all cost-related figures on the higher side, i.e. 67,772 sq. feet, and not just 67,000 sq feet, and Rs 4000/- per sq. ft., and not just Rs 3000/-. In short, we are estimating costs on the higher side.)

B. REVENUE FROM SALES = Rs 165.31 crore (93.80 plus 69.01 plus 2.5 cr) 

1.      Cheque Rs 93.80 cr: The official sale price is Rs 14,000/- per sq. ft., and so the total amount realized by cheque after selling 67,000 sq. ft. will be Rs 93.80 cr.

2.      Cash Rs 69.01 cr: Page 33 of the DevelopmentAgreement says that if society members wish to buy more than their entitlement, then they may do so at Rs 24,300/- per sq. ft. Moreover, the Development Agreement says that if the society members can sell their space to the builder @ Rs 14,000/- per sq. ft. So the real sale price is Rs 24,300/- per sq. ft. The difference between the two rates (24,300 minus 14,000) would generally be recovered in cash from new flat buyers. The amount realized in cash after selling 67,000 sq. ft. will be Rs 69.01 cr.

3.      Cash Rs 2.5 cr from sale of parking  areas.  The illegal activity of selling 50 parking spaces @ Rs 5 lakh apiece is mentioned in PMC’s feasibility report. It will be a source of cash income of at least Rs 2.5 crore. Parking spaces are unofficially sold against cash payments. Such sale is totally illegal, as parking spaces are part of the society’s common amenities, as clarified by Supreme Court in 2010.

C. TOTAL PROFIT Rs 109.42 cr. (165.31 minus 55.89 cr)

Profit is revenue minus cost i.e. Rs 165.31 cr minus Rs 55.89 cr. This amount consists of Rs 40.41 crore received by cheque, which will be shown in the books of account as PROFIT-BEFORE-TAX, and Rs 71.51 crore in cash, which will be in “Number-two books”.

Rs 71.51 crore cash available for bribery

Two officials of Maharashtra Govt's Cooperation Department T-Ward Mumbai – Mr BK Yelhare and Mr Milind Soble – were instrumental in giving the crucial 79A Certificate to Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP on 20 June 2014, when it did not even exist, and was not even eligible to open a bank account or write an official letter, let alone bag a 100-crore-rupees contract! The LLP firm came into existence only on 14 July 2014, when it received its certificate of incorporation. How could seasoned government officials award an eligibility certificate to a non-existent firm without first checking the documents of the firm? How could a government department enable a Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP to execute a contract for demolishing and rebuilding the houses of 72 families, when that firm did not even exist on paper?

Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP (belonging to Concrete Group) had not participated in the tender of Shree Gurukrupa Nagar CHS. Nor had it written a single letter to the society. Then how could it be deemed to have been selected by the society? Neither Mr Yelhare nor Mr Soble took the trouble to examine any papers before giving their green signal for the deal.

Also, the housing society’s office-bearers -- Chairman Mr Anil P Shah, Secretary Mr Sanjay N Jadhav and Treasurer Mr Nehal G Gala – accepted Rs 1.53 crore as the bank guarantee. Is it out of sympathy for the builders’ financial hardships and implicit trust in the builders’ integrity? Or are the office-bearers confident of being able to construct 72 new flats with only Rs 1.53 cr, in case the builders fail to do so?

The smell of bribery lingers in the air like a bad stink.

Krishnaraj Rao

To read previous press releases on this Concrete Group Redevelopment Project, go to:

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

Exposed: How Estate Agents make false claims to trap societies going for redevelopment

What Fresh Documents & Videos reveal about the Concrete Sire Sukan scam – part 1

Mumbai, October 1, 2015:  Mumbai is full of redevelopment activity that feels less like an honest business, and more like hostile takeover or creeping acquisition of flat-owners' assets. Cooperative housing society members who are at the receiving end of  such takeovers should read this article to understand how exactly this activity is carried out. Interesting documents and videos have been released by the motley bunch of builders and estate agents engaged in a hostile takeover of Shree Gurukrupa Nagar Cooperative Housing Society in Mulund West. In late 2013 or early 2014, Bharat Talesara alias Jain, an estate agent or “redevelopment consultant”, approached the office bearers of Shree Gurukrupa Nagar CHS and convinced them to let him handle their redevelopment. The office-bearers agreed to rig the society's tendering process and select him. To facilitate this rigging, Atul Mehta (B.E. Civil), was engaged as Project Management Consultant (PMC). The office-bearers and the PMC together convinced the society members that issuing advertisements and attracting bids through public tendering may attract underworld elements, and therefore, “private tendering” was the way forward. This stage-managed tender got only three bids, including Bharat Talesara's partnership firm called “Sire Sukan Realty”, which supposedly belonged to “Group of Sire Sukan Companies”. As pre-decided, the PMC recommended Sire Sukan Realty. Bharat Talesara went on to sell the redevelopment project to another entity called Concrete Group, belonging to Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal, in return for a nine percent share of profits. 

And what is Bharat Talesara's standing? Let us see. In May 2014, he claimed before the society that he was the founder-promoter of Sire Sukan Group whose turnover is currently Rs 200 crore, after six years in the real estate business. But in April 2015, he wrote to the police, "I have been in the business of redevelopment consultancy since 1 year by name Sire Sukan Group of Company, and working for Developer as well as Old Societies". In this same letter, he goes on to repeatedly say that he is only a consultant working for builders, struggling to make ends meet and support his family. 

Clearly, the housing society's sovereign right to select a redeveloper on the basis of merit was hijacked by an estate agent or middleman of little or no net worth, and zero experience in redevelopment. And 72 flat owners, who trusted their society's office bearers, are the sheep being led to the slaughterhouse. The funny thing is that most of these flat-owners still have absolutely no idea about what is happening, and they refuse to believe that they are being made into bakras! The financial and legal illiteracy of housing society members in general is quite astonishing. 

On September 8, we broke this story ( ) about the modus operandi of this hijack of a society's development rights by “Concrete Sire Sukan”, a bunch of estate agents and builders. Nettled, Concrete Sire Sukan responded with an article on September 14 ( ) which has today been deleted. However, you may download copies of the article from here  

Rather than defending, however, this article actually gives more details about how the fraud is being committed, not only by these builders, but by large numbers of builders and estate agents in Mumbai and other parts of Maharashtra.

This article written by the builders purports to be an open letter written by 65 society members, published on a social media platform called Saddahaq. It is full of links to videos and documents, which are a bit hard to download. It's easier to download them from .


1) Estate agent makes underhand deal with society office-bearers and PMC, who portrays estate agent as a successful builder and selects him as the redeveloper: The PMC, Atul Mehta, recommended Sire Sukan Realty by falsely reporting that he and other society members had visited a building that was successfully redeveloped by Siresukan Realty. Actually, the redeveloped building in Bhandup that they visited was made by Varasiddhi Group, not Sire Sukan. (Sire Sukan falsely claims that Varasiddhi is a group company belonging to Sire Sukan.) The PMC falsely reported that he had studied the financial position and technical capability of Sire Sukan Realty and found it strong, whereas the fact is that Sire Sukan Realty has no financial documents to speak of. The addresses of Sire Sukan Realty given in the letterhead, viz. “201 Dimple Arcade, Thakur Complex, Kandivali East”, and also, “501, Dimple Arcade” are also fake; they are tiny shops in a shopping arcade where nobody seems to have heard of Mr Bharat Talesara/Jain or Siresukan Realty. PMC Atul Mehta, society chairman Anil Shah and Secretary Sanjay Jadhav went through the motions of complying with the Maharashtra Cooperation Department's 79A Guidelines, slipperily conducted the necessary meetings, passed the necessary resolutions virtually unopposed, and got the unquestioning society members to sign on the dotted line. Although a few members got suspicious and started raising an alarm, they were repeatedly brushed aside and evaded. 

2) Estate agent sells captured redevelopment project to builders who offer maximum kickback:   After canvassing with various builders, trying to sell this project which was pending some paperwork, but already in his bag, Talesara struck a deal with Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal of Concrete Group, in return for nine percent share in profits. 

3) Estate agent and builders enter into partnership and get firm registered after getting contract. Maharashtra Cooperation Department gave this horse-trading a stamp of legitimacy by giving the 79A certificate to Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP on June 20, 2014; needless to say, palms were greased. Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP did not even exist on a letterhead, let alone as a legal entity. Not a single letter had been written to the society by this LLP firm, or by its owners Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal. Concrete Siresukan Realty LLP came into existence on 14th July, 2014. The incorporation documents of this Limited Liability Partnership firm reveal the details of the deal: 100% financial control rests with Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal, and a 9% share in profits is allocated to Bharat Talesara, who is a partner only in lieu of capturing passing on the development rights of Shree Gurukrupa Nagar CHS. Bharat Talesara has zero financial contribution in the LLP form, and therefore, he has no signing  authority or spending authority.

4) Estate agent hands over to builders. In January 2015, only Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal signed the Development Agreement with the society. Bharat Talesara was now out officially out of the picture. But he continues to make his presence felt at the society's redevelopment-related general-body meetings is to ensure that the deal does not come unraveled in his absence. After all, he still has to collect his nine percent from the builders, and they are not going to give it to him until they realize their money first! 

With the signing of the Development agreement, the transfer was complete. The 72 flats of Shree Gurukrupa Nagar CHS, together with the plot of land that the society was owner and possessor of, was neatly bundled up and converted into an asset that Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal could enjoy and extract profits from.


There are many exhibits that have emerged from the article posted by the builders on Here, we will focus on just a couple of them. At the crucial Special General Body meeting on 24th May, when Siresukan Realty was selected by the society members, a powerpoint presentation was made by Bharat Talesara about “Siresukan Group”. This is a video of that presentation that Mr Talesara has released as part of his article: . Below are some screen-grabs from this video:

1) Suresukan “Group Companies” are just false claims:

This slide falsely claims that all the above entities belong to Siresukan Group of Companies.

a) There is no such registered entity as SireSukan Capital Venture.

b) Ditto Siresukan Infrastructures LLP.  It does not exist.

c) Varasiddhi Infrastructure Pvt Ltd is an entirely separate entity, belonging to another group of builders. Details of this entity are here:

d) Siresukan Capital Advisory & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. is the only real “Siresukan” entity.

e) Concrete Lifestyle & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is a completely separate entity, owned and controlled 100% by Anuj Desai and Nilesh Dalal. It is the flagship company of Concrete Group.

f) Most significantly, there is no entity called “Sire Sukan Realty” named here, although all  the correspondence with the society was done in this name.

2) Siresukan “group” definition itself shows the false claim.

Siresukan Group (including Varasiddhi and Concrete companies) is supposed to have been founded by Bharat Jain. Untrue. Neither Varasiddhi and Concrete were not founded by Bharat Jain, and most of the other entities named in this powerpoint presentation simply don't exist. They are just imaginary names on a slide.

3) Fraudulent claim of turnover of more than Rs 200 crore in six-year-old business concern.
Fraudulent claim of turnover of more than Rs 200 crore in six-year-old business concern.

There are many evidences that the so-called Sire Sukan Group is just a front, and Bharat Sukanraj Jain alias Talesara is nothing but an over-ambitious estate agent. Shown below is his own statement to the police, where he admits that he is in the business of “Redevelopment Consultancy”.  "I have been in the business of redevelopment consultancy since 1 year by name Sire Sukan Group of Company, and working for Developer as well as Old Societies," Bharat Jain wrote in this letter to the police six months ago, on 15/04/2015“Dear Sir, I am just a consultant and I earn very hard to fulfill my family's primary needs”, he added.

Read Bharat Jain's statement below:

There are many evidences that the so-called Sire Sukan Group is just a front, and Bharat Sukanraj Jain alias Talesara is nothing but an over-ambitious estate agent. Shown below is his own statement to the police, where he admits that he is in the business of “Redevelopment Consultancy”.  "I have been in the business of redevelopment consultancy since 1 year by name Sire Sukan Group of Company, and working for Developer as well as Old Societies," Bharat Jain wrote in this letter to the police six months ago, on 15/04/2015. “Dear Sir, I am just a consultant and I earn very hard to fulfill my family's primary needs”, he added.

In other words, Bharat Talesara's claims of being a big builder, and the promoter of a huge group of companies worth Rs 200 crore doing business for six years, are totally fraudulent. It is a false claim, which the Project Management Consultant Mr Atul Mehta, and the society's office bearers have supported and upheld for corrupt reasons. Officials of the Maharashtra Cooperation Department and BMC's Building Proposal Department also appear to be complicit in this white-collar crime.

Conclusion: Unlike hostile takeover of companies (which became rare after the government tightened the screws on creeping acquisition of shares), hostile takeover and creeping acquisition of flat-owners' assets is a rampant malpractice in Mumbai region. Shoddy regulatory oversight by the cooperation department, municipal corporations and other authorities enables builders to take over common people's flats by hook or crook. The financial illiteracy of flat-owners and society office-bearers and the willingness of office-bearers and project management consultants (PMCs) to ally with builders, makes “society acquisition” and “redevelopment consultancy” a lucrative business. Even a powerpoint presentation full of false claims is enough to convince a society member that the person doing the takeover is a big builder. Office-bearers and PMC play their role by nodding their heads and claim to have seen the necessary documents. Until the government takes cognizance of such tactics and sets up a government body specifically for overseeing redevelopment projects, flat-owners will continue to be taken for a ride.

There are many more elements of this fraudulent redevelopment project, which we will expose in press releases that we shall release now in quick succession.

What the other side said: A draft of this press release was emailed to the builders and PMC, with a request to provide their rebuttal supported with documents. Here is their response:

Issued in Public Interest by
Krishnaraj Rao