False promises, owned homes resold: What CBI found in sale of 672 flats in NCR

On January 20 this year, CBI told the top court that it had completed investigations and filed chargesheets in three of the 28 cases of alleged collusion between builders and banks/ financial institutions. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to take cognizance of the chargesheets – and a Magistrate court in Delhi did so on January 27.

The SC had asked the CBI to investigate after it found a prima facie nexus between major banks and builders in the execution of projects in Noida, Greater Noida, the Yamuna Expressway, Gurgaon, and Ghaziabad on April 29 last year.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by more than 1,200 homebuyers who had booked flats under subvention plans in various housing projects in the NCR, alleging that they were being forced by banks to pay EMIs even though they were yet to get possession of their flats. The aggrieved homebuyers moved the top court after the Delhi High Court dismissed their petitions on March 14, 2022, on the grounds that an alternative remedy was available to them before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).

The CBI has alleged that Rudra Buildwell sold 672 flats by “making false promises to the innocent home buyers and collecting a substantial amount from… [them] on the assurance of timely delivery of flats”.

However, the project was not completed and the homebuyers did not get their money back, says the chargesheet. The CBI, which was represented in court by Public Prosecutors Saloni & Anoop Kumar, found that only the basic civil structure had been constructed, and the flats were unfit for occupation.

The complainant in the case, Nupur Chaurasia, had paid Rs 9.45 lakh to the builder, and taken a home loan of Rs 35 lakh from Central

Bank of India, Ghaziabad. The loan was sanctioned in June 2020, and a tripartite agreement under the subvention scheme was executed between Chaurasia, Rudra Buildwell, and the bank in the following month. It was understood that Chaurasiya would pay no pre-EMI until she received possession, which was promised within six months from the date of booking.

However, the CBI found that the flat had already been sold in 2017 to one Mohd. Ehtesham for Rs 42 lakh, and that it had been resold to Chaurasia even as Ehtesham’s loan account remained open. The previous sale was concealed from Chaurasia in violation of the tripartite agreement, the CBI has alleged.

Having not received possession of his flat, Ehtesham asked for the sale to be cancelled in November 2019. The builder assured him that the company would be liable for all pending dues in the purchase.

However, Ehtesham’s home loan account was not closed, and he had to ultimately pay the remaining dues of Rs 8 lakh from his own pocket, the CBI has said.

“…The accused…directly corresponded with…Chaurasia and despite being fully aware that the flat had already been sold earlier; concealed the same from [her]…with fraudulent intention. Thus, the accused…induced Central Bank of India to sanction and disburse home-loan to the buyer/ complainant…on the misrepresentation that the flat is free from encumbrances,” Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari of Rouse Avenue Court in her order taking cognizance of the chargesheet.

The court summoned the company and its then directors Raj Kumar and Manju Ram to appear before it on February 12.