Wednesday, 30 May 2018

Nirman Viviana flat-buyers: Is your 1 BHK really only a 1 RK?

Mumbai, 30th May 2018: Investors who booked a 1BHK flat in Viviana project of Nirman Realtors & Developers Ltd (NRDL) should go back and verify that it is actually a 1BHK. The fear is that it will probably be just a 1RK i.e. one-room-kitchen apartment, because, out of five blocks of Nirman Viviana, the first four blocks have only 1RK flats. Only Block 5 has 42 flats in 1BHK configuration. There is ample proof to suggest that Nirman has deliberately created the false impression in the minds of its flat-buyers that their flat is a 1 BHK.

RERA website shows that Nirman intends to deliver one-room-kitchen flats to all flat-buyers in Viviana Block 1 to 4. It is therefore amazing that Nirman Viviana (and Nano City) were continually advertised as 1 BHK projects during the past 2-3 years at least.

One ad claimed that Viviana was "1BHK flats only":

This advertisement has been falsely claiming for years that the entire Nirman Viviana
project has "1 BHK flats only".

This advertisement is false on two counts. Firstly, Nirman Nano City doesn't
have even one single 1BHK; it is all 1RK flats. And secondly, four out of
the five blocks of Nirman Viviana has only 1RK apartments. Only
Block 5 of Viviana has 1BHK apartments.

See what RERA website says about Viviana:

VIVIANA - BLOCK 1 P52000006083
According to Nirman declaration on RERA website, Viviana Block 1 has 27 flats of 1RK, and zero 1 BHK flats.
Eight of these flats have been booked, according to Nirman's declaration to RERA.

VIVIANA - BLOCK 2 P52000012071
Viviana Block 2 has 24 flats with 1RK, and zero flat with 1BHK.
Number of flats booked is zero, according to Nirman.

VIVIANA - BLOCK3 P52000007537
Viviana Block 3 has 18 flats with 1RK, and zero flat with 1BHK. No. of booked flats is 13, according to Nirman.

VIVIANA - BLOCK 4 P52000007121
Viviana Block 3 has 24 flats with 1RK, and zero flat with 1BHK. No. of booked flats is 1, according to Nirman.

VIVIANA - BLOCK 5 P52000006209
Viviana Block 5 has 42 flats of 1BHK, and 6 flats of 1RK. No. of booked flats is zero, according to Nirman.
Nirman has declared before RERA that only 22 of the 141 flats in Viviana project have been booked, and not even one 1BHK has been booked. All the booked flats are 1RK, says Nirman's RERA declaration. So, if any Viviana investor believes that he has booked a 1BHK flat, especially in Block 1 to 4, he is probably a victim of false advertising and deliberate mis-selling.

The implications of false advertising and mis-selling will be felt not only by the customers of Nirman, but by their investors also. Nirman has declared on RERA website that "Ravi Construction" (presumably Ravi Construction Pvt Ltd?) is an investor in Viviana Block 1, "Lifestyle Builders and Developers" (this one?) is an investor in Block 2, Girish Realtors Pvt Ltd is an investor in Block 4, and Shree Ashapura Group is an investor in Block 5. How these investors (co-promoters in the eyes of RERA) will be impacted by Nirman's actions remains to be seen.

Krishnaraj Rao

Also read:

1. Attention 1BHK flat-buyers of Nirman Nano City Neral: You were duped!

2. Nirman Developers defy RERA Orders, avoid refunding Viviana flat-buyer

3. Reply of Nirman Realtors & Developers re: RERA orders to refund Viviana flat-buyer

Saturday, 26 May 2018

Attention 1BHK flat-buyers of Nirman Nano City Neral: You were duped!

Mumbai, 26th May, 2018: If you think you purchased a 1BHK apartment in Nirman builder's Nano City -- also called "Nano Futuro" -- then this is a wake-up call for you, because your flat is a 1RK at best and a single-room studio apartment at worst. Your Nano City flat simply cannot have a one bedroom-hall-kitchen layout.

All three blocks of Nano City project constructed by Nirman Realtors & Developers Ltd (NRDL) only has 1RK and studio apartments (one-room flats) as per MahaRERA page of Nano City.

But, for many years, Nirman and its estate agency arm Propbest have been falsely advertizing 1BHK flats in Nano City/ Nano Futuro. Examples of such ads are readily available on the Facebook page of Nirman Realtors and Developers.

NRDL's Facebook page shows false advertisement of 1BHK flats in Nano Futuro, Neral (along with Green Acres, Malad).

False advertisement of 1BHK flats in Nano Futuro (along with Sai Nirman)

False advertisement of 1BHK flats in Nano City, Neral
(along with Viviana Neral and La Impero, Mahad)

Due to such advertisements, many flat-buyers may believe that they bought a reasonably-priced 1BHK property in Neral. The paperwork is deliberately vague, contradictory and misleading. The carpet-area may remain the same, but the built-up area of a 1RK or a studio apartment is less than that of a 1BHK. From a home-owner's perspective, there is a big difference between the two.

The RERA website of Nano City project shows the below statistics:

1) Nano City Blossom -- 1RK 10, Studio 14 (Total 24)
No of booked apartments -- 0

2) Nano City Lotus -- 1RK 20, Studio 28 (Total 48)
No of booked apartments -- 6

3) Nano City Lily -- 1RK 35, Studio 49 (Total 84)
No of booked apartments -- 57

At least 63 persons have booked flats in Nano City project, but how many have the correct idea about their flat's configuration? If you are among those who believed that you booked a 1BHK, only to discover later that you booked a 1RK or studio apartment, then consider filing a complaint before RERA, Consumer Forum or police Economic Offenses Wing.

Krishnaraj Rao

ALSO READ: Nirman Developers defy RERA Orders, avoid refunding Viviana flat-buyer

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

Nirman Developers defy RERA Orders, avoid refunding Viviana flat-buyer

Mumbai, 22 May, 2018: Those who have purchased flats from Nirman Realtors & Developers Pvt Ltd (NRDL) should become alert after seeing the builder's blatant defiance of RERA orders, and their tricks to avoid repaying a home-buyer Rs 18 lakhs plus interest. The case of home-buyer Suvarna Deokule, who is a teacher singlehandedly raising her two children, speaks for itself. Suvarna bought a flat for herself and her two children in Nirman Viviana, Neral, and paid close to Rs 18 lakhs in various installments in 2015, because she was informed that she would get possession before 15th December 2015. However, as possession was not given until 2018, Suvarna filed a complaint before RERA, seeking to withdraw from the project.

Suvarna Deokule with her two children.

Rajendra Sawant of Nirman Group filed an affidavit-in-reply, pleading that the delay in possession was due to ban on sand mining, etc.

On 28th February, 2018, BD Kapadnis gave a clear order in Suvarna's favour, directing Nirman Group to refund her dues with 10.05% interest. Read MahaRERA order dated 28-2-2018.

Defying the RERA order, Nirman unilaterally proposed a 9-months repayment schedule, but did not actually repay a single rupee to Suvarna. So Suvarna promptly approached RERA for compliance and execution of their order. Following a hearing on 2nd May, Kapadnis promptly passed an order directed at the District Collector, Raigarh, for execution of the warrant under section 40(1) as arrears of land revenue. Read the MahaRERA order dated 4-5-2018

A builder with intentions of abiding by the law would have paid the money owed to Suvarna Deokule. Instead of doing so, Nirman has ill-advisedly chosen to go in appeal against the first order, while completely ignoring the second order. See this email notification received on 19th May from the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. It must be noted that this appeal has been filed 82 days after the first order, and what is worse, it was filed after the order for its execution was given vide the second order.

How long will Nirman Developers continue to avoid repaying their aggrieved flat-buyer? Wait and watch.

Krishnaraj Rao

Nirman Realtors & Developers emailed their rejoinder, which is reproduced here

Also read:Attention 1BHK flat-buyers of Nirman Nano City Neral: You were duped!

Rejoinder of Nirman Realtors & Developers re: RERA orders to refund Viviana flat-buyer

Below is the emailed rejoinder (and subsequent exchange of correspondence) relating to this article about Nirman Realtor's non-compliance of RERA orders on Viviana project, Neral.

Dear Mr. Krishna Rao,

It appears that either you have received incomplete information or you have distorted the facts relating to the issue involved in the matter. Some relevant facts relating to the case are as under:-

The Complainant, Suverna Deokule approached the RERA authority with false and misleading statements on oath inter-alia that in the Agreement for Sale dated 7th May 2015, the Respondent has mentioned the composition of the subject flat as 1 BHK instead of 1RK.

Answer:-The Complainant suppressed that firstly in the agreement no where it is mentioned that flat agreed to sale to the complainant is 1 BHK as falsely alleged. Secondly, in the Agreement for Sale, the Nirman has annexed floor plan of the building Block No.3 at Annexure F therein clearly showing that the flat purchased by the Complainant i.e. Flat No.A-203 is 1 RK flat and not 1 BHK.

Another grievance made by the Complainant that the Nirman has delayed the construction of the building without any cogent reason is totally false and baseless.

Answer:- The construction of the building has been delayed due to non-availability of sand which has been duly informed and was very well to the knowledge of the Complainant. By the year of 2013-2014, Nirman has already completed the construction of building to the extent of 60 %, however, in or around the year 2013-14, one Awaaz Foundation has made several complaints against illegal sand mining from cricks and river in Raigad District. Therefore, in the year 2014 National Green Tribunal (NGT) banned sand mining in coastal region for the reason that the said mining was damaging natural ecosystem. The said ban continued for about two years between 2014-16. In the year 2016, the said ban was lifted upon promise made by the State Government that the mining will not damage environment eco system. On account of the said ban, the sand was not available for the construction in the entire Raigad District. Even after the ban lifted by the State Government at the end of the year 2016, the sand was not available for almost one and half year i.e. between the year 2016-2017 in reasonable quantity/good quality to enable the Respondent to complete the construction as the demand for sand is more than the supply available. The aforesaid fact has been categorically brought to the notice of the Complainant by the Respondent by and under its letter dated 30th November, 2015 which has been suppressed by the Complainant from RERA as well as you.

Para 8(c) of the said Agreement, the Complainant has confirmed and agreed that Nirman is entitled to reasonable extension of time for giving delivery of possession of the subject flat if the completion of the building is delayed for the reason beyond the control Nirman. But still, contrary to the said covenant the Complainant made complaint to RERA.

The Complainant also suppressed from RERA that Nirman has financially supported the Complainant to enable her to make payment of the stamp duty/registration charges owing to their long standing friendly relations. One of the Director of the Respondent i.e. Mr. Ajit Marathe has paid a sum of Rs.85,000/- to the Complainant to enable her to make payment of stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the subject flat as a refundable money in 30 days. However, till date the Complainant has not refunded the said sum of Rs.85,000/-. Therefore, RERA has directed Nirman to set off the said amount from final decree amount.

Inspite of unavoidable circumstances, the building Viviana, Block 3 in which the subject flat is situated is nearing to completion as only painting work in the subject flat in the building is pending. Thus, the subject flat in the complaint as well as entire building is nearing to possess which is suppressed from you.

Reply to your proposed press release:-

We take strong exceptions few wordings mentioned in the proposed article as follows :-

Nirman Developers repeatedly defy RERA Orders, avoid refunding Viviana flat-buyer”

Reply:- Nirman has not defied the order of RERA. Nirman by and under its letter dated 28th March, 2018 informed the Complainant that the total sum of Rs.20,71,912/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only) being award amount alongwith interest will be disbursed to the Complaint in three equal instalments of sum of Rs.6,90,637/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Seven Only) each and that the Appellants have assured to make first instalment of sum of Rs.6,90,637/- on or before 31st May 2018. The aforesaid fact was also brought to the notice of RERA at the hearing took place on 3rd May, 2018.

Those who have purchased flats from Nirman Realtors & Developers Pvt Ltd (NRDL) should become alert after seeing the builder's blatant defiance of RERA orders, and their tricks to avoid repaying a home-buyer Rs 18 lakhs plus interest

Reply : Complaint Lodged by the Mrs. Suverna is an disputed question of law and facts. The matter is subjudice in the court of law as appeal filed by Nirman is pending. Therefore, only on the basis of said litigation, the observation made by you is totally incorrect. It gives an impression to the reader who is not aware of the abovemetioned facts which obviously not mentioned in the article, that buyers should stay away from the Nirman or their project. Such, impression is totally incorrect. You being news reporters must be cautious of this.

“Defying the RERA order, Nirman unilaterally proposed a 9-months repayment schedule, but did not actually pay a single rupee to Suvarna

Reply:- As stated above first instalment was proposed to be made on 31st May, 2018 therefore there is no question of Nirman not paying paying single rupee as incorrectly stated. Nirman is still abide by its commitment of making payment of award amount in equal instalments as stated before RERA. One thing to be noted that the Complainant has not payment of consideration in one stroke or in single instalment therefore, Nirman is also entitled to opportunity for repayment in instalment instead of lum sum payment at one stroke as insisted by Complainant.

“Following a hearing on 2nd May, Kapadnis promptly passed an order directed at the District Collector, Raigarh, for execution of the warrant under section 40(1) as arrears of land revenue

Reply :- Nirman has categorically stated in the appeal that project namely Viviana Block-3 in which the subject flat is situated is nearing to completion as almost 95% of the project work is completed and Nirman is expected to handover the units soon. Therefore, the impunged order dated 3rd May, 2018 directing to issue recovery warrant for recovery of award amount as arrears of land revenue will prejudice the interest of the purchasers who have booked there units in the said project. The said order is contrary to principle of equity and balance of convenience.

“It must be noted that this appeal has been filed 82 days after the first order, and what is worse, it was filed after the order for its execution was given vide the second order”

Reply:- Appeal has been filed for correction and modification of Decree dated 28/02/2018. The said corrections for operative order was overlooked by RERA on 03/05/2018 further, RERA passed order for issuance of recovery warrant. Therefore, Nirman has filed Appeal against the order dated 03/05/2018. As per Section 43 of RERA an Appeal can be filed within 60 days from the date of the Order uploaded on website . order was uploaded in the second week of May, immediately in weeks time appeal is filed. Therefore, the Appeal has been filed in time and there is no delay

“How long will Nirman Developers continue to avoid repaying their aggrieved flat-buyer? Wait and watch

Reply:- As mentioned above, when the matter is subjudice in the court, you are not expected to run a parallel audience poll and seek readers opinion in this fashion. This would amount to interference with court of justice. More so forward wrong message amongst readers.

We further takes strong exception against displaying the photograph of the directors of Nirman.

We hope and trust that the abovementioned maters facts and explanation has thrown light on the actual dispute between the parties. You will appreciate that the same is purely personal dispute which does not required to make public. The Complainant, Mrs. Suverna is attempting to intentionally harass Nirman, by defaming them in public. The Complainant has intentionally forwarded incorrect rather incomplete information to you.

You are therefore requested not to associate with the Complainant with her sinister object and withdraw the proposed article.


Nirman Realtor and Developers Ltd.

My response to this  rejoinder was as follows:

Dear Sir,

1) Many thanks for your prompt and detailed rebuttal/rejoinder. Much appreciated.

2) Your rejoinder will be prominently published, verbatim, along with the draft press release, in such a manner that the readers will have a chance to judge for themselves the factual position regarding various points.

3) Your rejoinder will also be sent to Ms Suvarna Deokule for her surrejoinder to various points, as you allege that she has misrepresented before the RERA Authority. I will request her to support her statements with available documentary proofs, if any.

4) In my humble opinion, many points that you have argued (e.g. delay due to sand shortage) were earlier pleaded before the RERA member/judge, and these points are noted in the "speaking order" dated 28th Feb. Therefore, the RERA order that was passed has already considered these points. Moreover, if the RERA judge had felt that it is justified for you to repay Ms. Deokule in installments over several months, I am sure that he would have written that in his order. As no such period is mentioned in the order, and as the subsequent order to District Collector Raigarh has been passed by RERA in May, it seems evident that immediate refund without delay was envisaged by the earlier order.

5) Your subsequent appeal, filed on 19th May, does not support your claim that you have intention to refund Ms. Deokule.

6) I will consider not publishing the individual photos of the directors with the article.

7) Our complete exchange of correspondence, including this reply, will be published as links along with the article, to enable the readers to come to their own conclusions.

8) There is no question of my withdrawing the said article, as it is very much in the interest of the flat-purchasing public to know and understand the various facts of this matter, and about the latest RERA orders pertaining to them.

Thanking you once again,

Yours sincerely,
Krishnaraj Rao


Further to my reply to your rejoinder, I would like to add three documentary proofs that Ms Deokule sent in support of her claim that a 1BHK was offered and sold to her, and not a 1RK as claimed by you in your email. Please see the attached files with reference to the below points:

1) The email sent to Ms Deokule by your representative, Mr Kaustubh, had an attached poster which stated that Viviana project had "1BHK flats only" as item no. 1 listed under "Viviana project amenities".
2) Your PPT presentation has a slide that shows 1BHK of 315 and 333 sq ft carpet area. No other configuration is even mentioned in your PPT.

3) Last but not least, the receipt issued by you to Ms Deokule states that the payment is towards 1BHK.

Would you like to issue a clarification regarding these points? Please ensure that your clarification reaches us before 5 pm tomorrow evening, so that we can include it in the blog article / press release.

Yours sincerely,
Krishnaraj Rao

PS: I would like to gently remind you that the controversy regarding 1BHK versus 1RK was raised by your email, and not by my draft article. Nowhere in my draft article is it mentioned that Ms Deokule purchased a 1BHK; it is only referred to as a "flat".


Click here to read Supriya Deokule's surrejoinder to Nirman Realtors' email (Coloured paragraphs) are her replies.

Thursday, 17 May 2018

Beware of Omkar Alta Monte's unfair terms & conditions!

Mumbai, 17th May, 2018: When you pay a token of Rs 5 lakh and fill up an application form for booking a flat in Omkar Alta Monte (situated on Western Express Highway, Malad East), you enter into contract with Omkar builders, right? Right, because you are bound by the contract as soon as your money goes into their bank account. If you cancel the transaction, whatever you paid will be forfeited. As much as Rs 30 to 60 lakh is the token or "application fee" for a 3BHK costing Rs 3 crore, and you can lose all that money if you try to cancel the transaction. 

It seems reasonable to expect that Omkar builders are also bound by the same contract to sell the flat to you, right? Wrong, because Omkar Realtors are NOT contractually bound to sell you the specified flat, or any flat for that matter. They can reject your booking even two months after you paid the initial token amount. Omkar does not have to give you any reasons for rejection, and you have no right to ask. Adding insult to injury, Omkar is not required to return your money -- Rs 30 to 60 lakhs -- immediately. They may return it one month afterwards, causing you much anxiety, and interest loss of Rs 20K to 40K.

This is exactly how Omkar Alta Monte's application form clearly says they will deal with you. You might as well be signing a document that says, "Kick me and exploit me; I have given you consent." Beyond a shadow of doubt, it is an unfair trade practice, and any straight-headed lawyer can confirm this.

Click here to download and read the application for Omkar Alta Monte:

Pay attention to the parts underlined in red. See how it enables the builder to exploit you!

The onerous terms & conditions imposed by Omkar builders.

Such an application form enables the builder to make lakhs and crores of rupees every month through forfeited tokens and interest earned by late return of tokens! Am I saying with certainty that Omkar builders are actually doing this to make a lot of money? Unless and until some exploited victims share their stories with me, supported with documentary evidence, I can't say this with certainty. But I have reason to believe that this is happening. Sipping cool drinks in the five-star grandeur of the sales office, overawed by the snooty suited-booted smooth-talking staff, flat-buyers struggle to hide the fact that they are afraid of being judged and found inferior.

Most people who fill up the application form and pay a big cheque do so without asking the right questions.

But I asked questions, to which there were no answers! This was my first email to Omkar:

From: Krishnaraj Rao <>
Date: Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:31 PM
Subject: Queries on Omkar Terms & Conditions Re: Thank You For Your Enquiry-AltaMonte
To: OMKAR <>, Omkar Senior Manager Channel Sales <>, Omkar Senior Manager Sales <>, Omkar Legal <>

Dear Sudip,
As earlier discussed, I am placing my queries and doubts regarding the terms & conditions before you i.e. sales team, legal team and senior management if necessary. I will be happy to meet with your legal team and discuss these concerns in detail.
Having visited your site office, discussed with you, and read your application form and terms and conditions with care, I am worried by the legal and practical implications of the terms and conditions, which will be applicable to me if I sign the dotted line.
The terms and conditions referred to in this email are attached. They are a snapshot from your application letter, given to me at the site office.
My main issues are in bold red type:

The meaning of point no. 1, as I understand it, is as follows: Even after paying booking amount of 10% during special offer period upto 15th May, or 20% outside this scheme period (as per construction-linked schedule given to me) prior to registration of the agreement, I will have no claim whatsoever on the flat for which I apply in the same application form. Even after realization of this amount by you, I will still have no claim on the said flat until the sale agreement is registered. I am bound after giving the token, but you are still free, and this is my issue no. 1. 
Point no. 2 stipulates that after paying the initial token amount (say Rs 10 lakhs), the balance of the booking amount (i.e. 10 to 20% of consideration value of approx Rs 3 cr for 3 BHK -- an amount of Rs 30 to 60 lakhs) has to be paid with X number of days. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that the time mentioned in the application form is 30 days. Let us suppose I pay a token of Rs 10 lakh of 20th May, and and pay a further Rs 50 lakh by bank transfer on 20th June. In an ideal scenario, this means that you should be entering into registered agreement with me on 21st June. However, instead of casting this duty on you, your point 4 states that you can write a letter to me on 21st July saying that my application is rejected. 

Point no. 3 states that Omkar i.e. Era Realtors Pvt Ltd, can reject my application form without assigning any reasons for such rejection.
And Point no. 4 states that my application can be rejected upto 30 days after my second payment, and my money will be refunded to me a further 30 days after that i.e. 20th August. But why? If you are rejecting my application, why aren't you duty-bound to refund my amount on the same day, along with the intimation of rejection? What is the legal, moral and financial justification for holding on to my money -- Rs 30 to 60 lakhs -- for one full month even after rejecting my application, and that too without assigning any reasons? Can you imagine how much mental harassment it will cause to any innocent flat-buyer? Harassment is my issue no. 2.

I think the implication is (in a hypothetical scenario), that if some other buyer books the exact same flat for a higher consideration amount 29 days after my payment , he can be allotted the same flat, and my application can be rejected by you on the 30th day. And to make matters worse, I may be compelled and pressured by you to accept another inferior flat at the same price because you will not refund my money till another 30 days i.e. 20th August. Element of compulsion and pressure is my issue no. 3.
Under such conditions, why should I pay you a token of lakhs of rupees on 20th May, and further booking amount on 20th June, and get locked up till at least 20th August, with zero commitments from your side? Why do you have such an unfair and unequal relationship between a buyer who pays lakhs of rupees to you, and commits to pay crores of rupees?  The inequality between two contractual parties (builder and buyer), and unfair distribution of power by this contract, is my issue no. 4.

In such a scenario, I would suffer a minimum interest loss of Rs 40K. From a commercial point of view, how does this make any sense? Financial loss is my issue no. 5.
Your point no. 5 says that right and title to the purchased flat will accrue only after registration of agreement. But clauses 1 to 4 imply that registration of agreement may not happen for at least two months after payment of token, and buyer cannot ask for registration as a right till then. Terms and conditions have no time-bound clause for registering the agreement in a time-bound way, and this is my issue no. 6.

Your point no. 7 states that application fees or 10% of consideration, whichever is higher, will stand forfeited if the buyer cancels the application. "Whichever is higher" means that if I have paid 20% i.e. Rs 60 lakh prior to registration as per your construction-linked schedule, then that amount will be forfeited. "Whichever is higher" is my issue no 7, because it means that the forfeited amount can be even more than 10% of consideration.
I have another issue with this clause. On the one hand, you are saying that filling up this application form (and of course paying the booking amount/application fee) does not confer any rights, title and interests, that the deal between us is concluded, and you have no compulsion to sell me the flat that I applied for. In other words, it is just a piece of paper. On the other hand, you want to forfeit my 10% for cancelling the application, as if I am cancelling the whole deal. If the application is only a piece of paper conferring no rights and title on me, why should I have to forfeit any amount for cancelling it? This logical inconsistency is my issue no. 8.

Please don't tell me that every builder does this, because I am not getting a transaction with every builder. Also don't tell me that every other buyer has signed it, because I am not answerable for the general public's lack of financial/legal literacy and commonsense.

As discussed at your site office, I am seriously considering buying a 3BHK from you specifically, and I don't want to accept any unfair terms and conditions from you. So, I want you guys to suitably amend the terms and conditions of the application form for me, and send me the amended application form for my signature.
I am happy to discuss and debate with your legal team or senior management, if necessary.
Eagerly awaiting your revert.

Yours sincerely,
Krishnaraj Rao

Another issue: Omkar blindfolds home-buyers with Sale Agreement!

Omkar has many hidden land-related legal issues. Omkar Alta Monte is a hugely flawed Slum Rehabilitation project. Omkar's declaration on RERA website is a mixture of half-truths and non-disclosures. The proforma Agreement for Sale uploaded on MahaRERA website makes you voluntarily wear a blindfold. By signing this agreement, you forfeit your right to ask for the documents that enable you to make an informed purchase decision. Omkar's agreement can be summed up as, "Ask me no questions, and I will tell you no lies. Give me the money, take your flat and keep quiet!"

Download and read Omkar's proforma Agreement for Sale:
So this was my second email to Omkar:
From: Krishnaraj Rao <>
Date: Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:52 AM
Subject: Queries on proforma Agreement for Sale
To: OMKAR <>, Omkar Senior Manager Channel Sales <>, Omkar Senior Manager Sales <>, Omkar Legal <>

Dear Sudip, Sunny & Ashish,

Further to my email yesterday, I found out just now that the proforma Agreement for Sale raises some red flags.

Point IV on page 11 says, " IV. Further, the Allotee/s has/have been informed and acknowledge(s) that the FSI proposed to be consumed in the construction of the Building/s or wings/s of the said Project may not be proportionate to the area of the physical Land on which it is being utilized for construction and/or in proportion to the total area of the Land taking into account the FSI to be utilized for all buildings to be constructed thereon. The Promoter in its sole discretion, may allocate such buildable FSI for each of the buildings being constructed on the Land/individual segment/phase as it thinks fit and the Purchaser(s)/Allottee(s) of the premises in such buildings (including the Allottee/s) have understood the manner of consumption of the FSI as set out herein and agree not to raise any claim or dispute thereof."

What I understand from this point is that Fungible FSI of the rehab component has been used (or is intended to be used) for sale component, and this has been done with the signed consent of the Rehab component allottees. Is my understanding correct? Please clarify this.

Paragraph (w) on page 14 says, "(w) The Purchaser(s)/Allottee(s) has inspected the following:-" and it gives a  list of 27 documents. 

Paragraph (dd) on page no. 17 says: "The Purchaser(s)/Allottee(s) has, prior to the date hereof, examined copies of all the aforesaid documents, plans, title certificate and has caused the same to be examined in detail by his/her/its Advocates and Planning and Architectural consultants. The Purchaser(s) /Allottee(s) has agreed and consented to the development of the entire project on the said Larger Land/Property;

Paragraph (jj) on page no. 19 says: "The Purchaser(s)/Allottee(s) agree/s that the size of the said Flat shall be as per the plans approved by Slum Rehabilitation Authority or concerned statutory authority which are already inspected by the Purchaser(s)/Allottee(s) and have completely satisfied himself / herself / themselves in respect thereof;"

When and where will you give me inspection of these above-mentioned documents? Can I inspect them at the site-office tomorrow, please? And will you provide me copies for showing them to my advocate and architect?

Eagerly awaiting your revert.

Warm Regards,

These emails were acknowledged by the Vice President Sales, who promised to give a detailed reply in 3 working days.
On Tue, 8 May 2018, 18:55 Ram Rajan, <> wrote:
Dear sir,

We have received your queries, kindly allow us 3 working days time to reply back on your queries.

We also acknowledge your initial token amount for unit no-B-1610, and the same would be deposited post clarifying mutually agreeing on your below mentioned queries.


After much follow-up, Sunny Soni (Vice President Sales), arranged a conference call with GM Legal Hetal Savla on 15 May, 2018.

In the course of our call, Hetal tried to justify these practices in terms of possible difficulties and losses faced by Omkar in case of a cancellation from the customer's side, but she did not offer any legal justifications for the one-sided contract.

She said that I could not be allowed to see the documents mentioned in the Proforma Agreement until realization of my cheque -- and maybe not even then. She said that the documents were confidential, although the Proforma Agreement says that I must read them and show them to an advocate or architect before signing the agreement. "It is a matter of company policy," she said, and that I could take it or leave it.

Click here to listen to my conversation with Omkar's GM Legal:

After giving Omkar ample opportunities to address my concerns, I have decided to go public with this, to warn flat-buyers to be careful before signing Omkar's application form and registered agreement. People who have already fallen victims to Omkar after signing are invited to call me or email me with details. Those who feel that Omkar's business practices are justified or necessary are also invited to call me and discuss openly.

Krishnaraj Rao

Wednesday, 9 May 2018

Proof that Bhagtani has liquidity & EOW has NOT freezed all accounts!

Mumbai, 10th May, 2018: Hundreds of cheated home-buyers of Bhagtani builders (also known as Jaycee Homes and JVPD Properties) are running from pillar to post, trying to recover lakhs and crores of rupees that they paid for booking flats. Circumstances have led most victims to believe that Diipesh, Mukesh and Lakshman Bhagtani have no money. People have become almost convinced that over Rs 450 crore collected towards Riyo, Sapphire, Serenity and Savannah projects has somehow magically vanished like water poured on desert sand. "EOW officers say that they have freezed all the accounts, and all accounts have zero balance," say victims who are in regular touch with the police.

But if this is true, then how did Bhagtani repay an SBI loan of Rs 12.40 crore in April 2018? Look at this screenshot from Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) website:

If you can't believe your eyes, read this Certificate of Satisfaction of Charge issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Yes, Jaycee Homes repaid Rs12.40 cr in April 2018. (Maybe not the entire amount at once, but still...)

So, what are the implications of this?

a) It means that all Bhagtani accounts are not frozen, and/or there are accounts that EOW doesn't know about.


b) It means that some friend, business associate or family-member paid off the loan to satisfy the charge. If this is the case, then it could also mean that the money given by flat-buyers may be partly or entirely parked with that same party.

Three things led to the belief that Bhagtanis have no money: 

(1) Bhagtanis did not deposit Rs 22 crore with Bombay High Court. The couldn't even pay the first monthly installment of Rs 3.5 crore. As a result, their anticipatory bail application was rejected by Justice Gadkari, and so Diipesh Bhagtani was put behind bars. He has been there for the past four months. Mukesh and Lakshman have gone underground to evade arrest. If Bhagtanis had money, why did they let this happen?

(2) Bhagtanis did not repay Xander loan of approximately Rs 11 crore (Rs 15 crore with interest). As a result, the SARFAESI Act was invoked by Xander and mortgaged properties -- Krishaang and Serenity -- were taken over. The value of these properties is at least Rs 50 to 60 cr. If Bhagtanis had money, why did they let this happen?

(3) During recent High Court hearings of Krishaang case, Diipesh Bhagtani pleaded that his wife was running his household with her earnings, and that they could not pay their son's school fees. He pleaded for some bank accounts to be unfreezed so that he could meet household expenses.

But if Bhagtanis are so poor, then how did they repay this huge loan and release the asset? Where did all that liquidity come from? Bhagtanis are not legally authorized to sell off any assets in the current situation, nor are any of their bank accounts supposed to be active. From which bank account did the last installment of repayment come, and how? 

And what exactly are the mortgaged assets, and what are they worth? Can it be a land parcel having a very high value?

This loan repayment raises a lot of questions. It also raises some hopes.

Krishnaraj Rao

Monday, 7 May 2018

Marina Cliff-Haven Articles dated 05/02/2018 & 07/05/2018 stands withdrawn

Mumbai dated 7th day of October, 2018: After making enquiry and after going through the documents provided by Enamour Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Sunvenn Advisors Pvt. Ltd., it is clear that there is no connection between Enamour Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Sunvenn Advisors Pvt. Ltd. on the one hand and Prachin Hotels Pvt. Ltd. on the other hand in respect of the Project ‘Cliff Haven’ at Alibaug.

The above Articles viz. “Flat Buyers Beware: Alibaug Cliff Haven is Marina Scam Reloaded” dated 05/02/2018 and RCL-RBIL Realty Scam: who all are part of this Crime Ring?dated 07/05/2018 were published on wrong and untrue information furnished to me. In view of the above, the aforesaid Articles published on this case stands withdrawn. We regret for the inconvenience caused to Enamour Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Sunvenn Advisors Pvt. Ltd. and their Directors.

Krishnaraj Rao