Delhi Police files FIR against Noida-based Prateek Group
Real Estate

Delhi Police files FIR against Noida-based Prateek Group

Twenty purchasers accused the Noida-based realtor of defrauding them, leading the Delhi Police's economic offences division to file a formal complaint (FIR) against the owners and top management of Prateek Group. Following a complaint from the 20 purchasers of Prateek Edifice in Sector 107, the owners Prashant and Prateek Tiwari, as well as top managers Sunil Kumar Mittal and Anshuman Sharma, were identified in the First Information Report (FIR). The police document claims that the developers planned a scam involving around Rs 1.90 billion.

The 423 apartments sold at Edifice, according to the complainants, were 10-12% smaller than what they had been paid for.

"The apartments that were delivered to us were far smaller than what had been promised. After we filed a complaint against the developer with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), an architect was hired to conduct a study. In addition to giving us smaller apartments, they continued building without our permission, according to Rajeev Goyal, one of the complainants.

The realtor also postponed the apartments' delivery. Goyal stated that he was guaranteed ownership of the flat he had reserved in April 2012, but it was moved up by a year. Nevertheless, Goyal stated he had paid 95% of the entire fee by May 2016; yet, the unit was not delivered until February 2019. " After the NCDRC requested that the developer turn over the apartments within three weeks, we were eventually given possession. Numerous services and conveniences that were promised to us were not provided. Goyal said, "There were numerous unfinished projects, flaws in the building, finishing, fittings, and fixtures in the apartments, and a lot of unfinished work."

According to the FIR, Prateek Group allegedly received over Rs 9 crore in interest-free maintenance security (IFMS) payments from apartment owners but did not refund this amount to the association of owners despite notices from the Authority. The developer also charged more for grid electricity, meter connections, WiFi, cooking gas security, and sewer connections, buyers claimed.

According to the FIR, despite warnings from the Authority, Prateek Group allegedly collected over Rs 9 crore from apartment owners as interest-free maintenance security, or IFMS, but failed to return the money to the association of owners. Buyers also alleged that the developer overcharged for sewage connections, cooking gas security, WiFi, metre connections, and grid power.

Although standard prepaid electricity submeters were calibrated and powered on in April 2019, according to Goyal, developers began to recoup fixed prices for grid and distributed generation power starting in January 2019. According to the FIR, the builder allegedly demanded payment of Rs 1.8.8 million for alleged arrears of water charges.The firm was accused by the complainants of illegally recovering water and power rates by misusing prepaid submeters installed in apartments.

A spokesperson for Prateek Group said the developer had not received any communication from police so far. ?The flat owners who lodged the complaint have already been given possession of flats. Additionally, registration and possession of flats are over. Further action will be taken once we get all the information,? the spokesperson added.

Twenty purchasers accused the Noida-based realtor of defrauding them, leading the Delhi Police's economic offences division to file a formal complaint (FIR) against the owners and top management of Prateek Group. Following a complaint from the 20 purchasers of Prateek Edifice in Sector 107, the owners Prashant and Prateek Tiwari, as well as top managers Sunil Kumar Mittal and Anshuman Sharma, were identified in the First Information Report (FIR). The police document claims that the developers planned a scam involving around Rs 1.90 billion. The 423 apartments sold at Edifice, according to the complainants, were 10-12% smaller than what they had been paid for. The apartments that were delivered to us were far smaller than what had been promised. After we filed a complaint against the developer with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), an architect was hired to conduct a study. In addition to giving us smaller apartments, they continued building without our permission, according to Rajeev Goyal, one of the complainants. The realtor also postponed the apartments' delivery. Goyal stated that he was guaranteed ownership of the flat he had reserved in April 2012, but it was moved up by a year. Nevertheless, Goyal stated he had paid 95% of the entire fee by May 2016; yet, the unit was not delivered until February 2019. After the NCDRC requested that the developer turn over the apartments within three weeks, we were eventually given possession. Numerous services and conveniences that were promised to us were not provided. Goyal said, There were numerous unfinished projects, flaws in the building, finishing, fittings, and fixtures in the apartments, and a lot of unfinished work. According to the FIR, Prateek Group allegedly received over Rs 9 crore in interest-free maintenance security (IFMS) payments from apartment owners but did not refund this amount to the association of owners despite notices from the Authority. The developer also charged more for grid electricity, meter connections, WiFi, cooking gas security, and sewer connections, buyers claimed. According to the FIR, despite warnings from the Authority, Prateek Group allegedly collected over Rs 9 crore from apartment owners as interest-free maintenance security, or IFMS, but failed to return the money to the association of owners. Buyers also alleged that the developer overcharged for sewage connections, cooking gas security, WiFi, metre connections, and grid power. Although standard prepaid electricity submeters were calibrated and powered on in April 2019, according to Goyal, developers began to recoup fixed prices for grid and distributed generation power starting in January 2019. According to the FIR, the builder allegedly demanded payment of Rs 1.8.8 million for alleged arrears of water charges.The firm was accused by the complainants of illegally recovering water and power rates by misusing prepaid submeters installed in apartments. A spokesperson for Prateek Group said the developer had not received any communication from police so far. ?The flat owners who lodged the complaint have already been given possession of flats. Additionally, registration and possession of flats are over. Further action will be taken once we get all the information,? the spokesperson added.

Next Story
Equipment

Handling concrete better

Efficiently handling the transportation and placement of concrete is essential to help maintain the quality of construction, meet project timelines by minimising downtimes, and reduce costs – by 5 to 15 per cent, according to Sandeep Jain, Director, Arkade Developers. CW explores what the efficient handling of concrete entails.Select wellFirst, a word on choosing the right equipment, such as a mixer with a capacity aligned to the volume required onsite, from Vaibhav Kulkarni, Concrete Expert. “An overly large mixer will increase the idle time (and cost), while one that ..

Next Story
Real Estate

Elevated floors!

Raised access flooring, also called false flooring, is a less common interiors feature than false ceilings, but it has as many uses – if not more.A raised floor is a modular panel installed above the structural floor. The space beneath the raised flooring is typically used to accommodate utilities such as electrical cables, plumbing and HVAC systems. And so, raised flooring is usually associated with buildings with heavy cabling and precise air distribution needs, such as data centres.That said, CW interacted with designers and architects and discovered that false flooring can come in handy ..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

The Variation Challenge

A variation or change in scope clause is defined in construction contracts to take care of situations arising from change in the defined scope of work. Such changes may arise due to factors such as additions or deletions in the scope of work, modifications in the type, grade or specifications of materials, alterations in specifications or drawings, and acts or omissions of other contractors. Further, ineffective planning, inadequate investigations or surveys and requests from the employer or those within the project’s area of influence can contribute to changes in the scope of work. Ext..

Advertisement

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Talk to us?