A city court has refused to quash the summons against top bosses of real estate major Unitech Ltd in three cheating complaints lodged by investors in their housing projects. While dismissing Unitech’s revision petitions, the court rejected its contention that the role of the accused persons have not been specified in the order.
Watch what else is making news:
“There is no illegality in summoning of revisionist accused company (Unitech) by the trial court… complainants have specifically stated that all other accused were the full time Directors of the company. A common man cannot be expected to have the inside information of all the Directors of a company so as to indicate their specific roles,” Additional Sessions Judge Vrinda Kumari said.
The court refused to grant relief to the firm and its directors saying the allegations in the complaints prima facie established they are criminally liable. “The averments in the complaints coupled with documents and statements of the complainants recorded in pre-summoning evidence, prima facie, establish that the accused persons including the revisionistaccused firm are criminally liable for the alleged offences,” the court said.
It also noted there were specific allegations that despite payment of the agreed amount, the accused persons (Unitech Managing Directors and Directors) kept on avoiding handing over the possession of the booked flats and also avoided to refund the paid amount with interest.
The judge also rejected the argument of the accused firm that complainants produced only the photocopies of agreements and other documents, saying their perusal showed “original documents were produced by the complainants at the time of recording of presummoning evidence.”
A magisterial court had issued summons against Unitech and its top bosses on October 5, September 5 and September 1 in three separate complaint cases for alleged offences including those under sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
Unitech, in its plea, had said the complaints do not disclose any criminal offence and the dispute is purely civil in nature. It had claimed that no proper evidence was led by the complainants and the impugned order does not indicate application of mind.