The Brave Pedestrian

મુંબઇ, 24 ફરવારી 2017: જૈન ચેરીટેબલ ટ્રસ્ટ (રજીસ્ટર્ડ નંબર 19790 -મુંબઈ) વર્ધમાન સંસ્કાર ધામે છેતરપિંડી અને વિશ્વાસઘાત કર્યો છે. વર્ધમાન સંસ્કાર ધામે 2007 ની સાલમાં વિરાર રાજીવ નગરમાં, નૈઋત બિલ્ડિંગમા એક ફલેટ 4,30,000 (ચાર લાખ ત્રીસ હજાર રૂપિયા) મા લીધું હતું,  અને 2011 મા 13,19,000 (તેર લાખ ઓગણીસ હજાર)  એક અંધ વ્યક્તિ ને વેચ્યુ, જેમ નુ નામ જેઠમલજી ખેમરાજજી સોનીગરા છે, ટ્રસ્ટે જેટલું રોકાણ કર્યું હતું તેનાથી ત્રણ ગણું કમાણી કરી. સંસ્થા ના લેટરહેડ પર લખેલ રસીદ સ્પષ્ટ પણે બતાવે છે કે જેઢમલ સોનીગરા આ જગ્યા વેચાતી લીધેલ છે. તેના પછી નો બીજો લેટર ના કહેવા પ્રમાણે આ જગ્યા મા રહેવા માટે સોનીગરા આ રકમ ડિપોઝીટ આપેલ છે. પૂરી રકમ તે સમયના ભાવ પ્રમાણે મેળવી (565 square feet × Rs 2600 ના ભાવે),  તે છતાં ટ્રસ્ટ આ સોદો કેન્સલ કરવા માંગે છે. જેઠમલજી  સોનીગરા અને એમની દીકરી પ્રવીણા પહેલા જેઠમલ સોનીગરા ને આવી શંકા નહોતી કે સંસ્થા એમના અંધ હોવાનો ગેરલાભ લેશે,  4 વર્ષ થી સોનીગરા સતત સંસ્થા ને માગણી કરતા રહ્યા કે તમે રજીસ્ટર્ડ સેલ એગ્રીમેન્ટ કરી આપો...

Mumbai, 17th February, 2017: It's a simple case of cheating and breach-of-trust by a Jain "charitable" trust called Vardhman Sanskar Dham (Trust Reg. no. 19790 – Mumbai). In 2007, Vardhaman Sanskar Dham purchased a flat in Nairut building, Rajiv Nagar, Virar, for Rs 4.30 lakh. Four years later, in 2011, the trust sold this flat to a blind man named Mr Jethmal Sonigra for Rs 13.19 lakhs, earning more than three times the amount that it had invested. However, although the first letterhead-receipt of the trust clearly shows that Mr Sonigra had paid for purchase of the flat (565 sq. ft. x Rs 2,600/-), the second letter says that this amount is a "deposit" against which "we have hand over possession for residence purpose".  Through this letter, this "charitable trust" is trying to say that allowing him to stay in this house was only a "charitable act" towards a blind man, and the money that he paid them – three times the price of t...

We published an press release titled: Flat Sale or Leave & Licence? Jain "Charitable" Trust cheats Blind Flat-buyer To this press release, the trustees of Vardhaman Sanskar Dham emailed a rebuttal . The below email was written raising further queries to their rebuttal. The queries raised by us in this email (in red) went unanswered. From: Krishnaraj Rao <krish.kkphoto@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Draft Press Release on Cheating by Vardhman Sanskar Dham To: Yogeshmshah Mahasukhalal <yogeshmshah@gmail.com> Cc: chartered accountant <chartered9@gmail.com>, kuvadia jyotish <jyotishkuvadia@gmail.com>, Nilesh Patni <patniagency@gmail.com>, chetan mehta <cachetanmehta18@gmail.com>, Sulaiman Bhimani <sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com>, Pravina Sonigra <psob286vr@gmail.com> Dear Yogeshbhai, Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. My colleague Mr Sulaiman Bhimani and I will study your rep...

We published an press release titled: Flat Sale or Leave & Licence? Jain "Charitable" Trust cheats Blind Flat-buyer To the draft of this press release (which we emailed to them), the trustees of Vardhaman Sanskar Dham emailed a rebuttal, which we reproduce below. From: Yogeshmshah Mahasukhalal <yogeshmshah@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Draft Press Release on Cheating by Vardhman Sanskar Dham To: Krishnaraj Rao <krish.kkphoto@gmail.com> Cc: chartered9@gmail.com, kuvadia jyotish <jyotishkuvadia@gmail.com>, Nilesh Patni <patniagency@gmail.com>, chetan mehta <cachetanmehta18@gmail.com> Dear Shri Krishnmunj Rao Mumbai   Received your draft press release on cheating by Vardhaman Sanskar Dham by mail on 13/02/2017   Our rebuttal is as under  :       It is factually wrong that the Trust has sold the flat situated at Bldg RN. 7 Flat No.103 to Mr. Jethmalji...

Mumbai, 16 th February, 2017: It's a proven fact that millions of innocent young lives are saved by a law named COTPA, requiring tobacco brands to display graphic warnings on 85% of their packaging surface. Naturally, India's tobacco barons – mercenary drug lords whose business consists of spreading tobacco-addition among youths -- are lobbying for dilution of this law and hunting for reliefs from court. But why are all the tobacco barons filing petitions in Karnataka High Court in particular, instead of their own states? Of all the high courts that are available to them, why Karnataka? Why is Karnataka High Court entertaining them and giving them red-carpet treatment despite lack of jurisdiction? And why is Supreme Court – the Indian citizen's last hope -- looking the other way and allowing trhis forum-hunting? These are uncomfortable questions, bordering on criminal contempt. But, with millions of lives at stake, one is compelled by conscience to raise such q...

Mumbai, 12 th February, 2017: Horizon Green, the prestigious new Borivali East project, has huge issues. No real drainage system – that's a  serious problem we have written articles about . But there's a more serious worry for flat-purchasers, namely, not getting proper title to the purchased flat at Horizon Green. The confusion on who's legally the builder of Horizon Green -- Raheja, Bhoomi or Prashasti -- is like three men claiming to have fathered one child. On the municipal corporation's records, K Raheja is the builder. But Prashasti Enterprise is claiming to prospective flat-purchasers that it is the builder. And in between Raheja and Prashasti, there's the ghost of Bhoomi Constructions, a partnership that has been dissolved.  On paper, Bhoomi Constructions got the development rights in 2003 from K Raheja for building Horizon Green, and in turn assigned these development rights to Prashasti Enterprise in 2008. But that's only on paper; in real life,...

Mumbai, 12th February, 2017: Justice CS Karnan's reply to Supreme Court's contempt notice is heroically contemptuous. Based on this reply, one expects that the contempt hearing of India's judge-gone-berserk will probably have sensational disclosures about allegedly corrupt judges, particularly Chief Justice of Madras High Court SK Kaul. One is led to wonder whether Justice Karnan is on trial here, or India's judiciary is on trial! Read Justice Karnan's defiant reply to the contempt notice .   In Justice Karnan's reply to the suo motu contempt notice served on him by a seven-judge bench, he alleges that the notice issued is (a) bad in law (b) illogical (c) unethical (d) against natural justice (e) mala fide (f) biased along caste lines, and most importantly, (g) intended to shield Justice SK Kaul who is about to be elevated to the Supreme Court. Karnan's reply -- like Arundhat Roy's defiant reply in 2001 -- is almost certain to be h...