DARSHAN LALIT GANDHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPP/884/2018, APPP/558/2018 and APPP/889/2018 are not on board. They are taken on board.

(2.) Prosecution case against the Applicants is, complainant invested an amount of Rs. 10,88,34,975.00 and was offered 25% of share in the developed property. The said promise was not honoured. As such, pursuant to the complaint, offence came to be registered. It can be noticed that complaint is at the behest of the investor. After offence was registered, scope of investigation has increased as other flat purchasers were not handed over possession after accepting consideration.

(3.) In the aforesaid backdrop, without going into merits of the matter, vide ad-interim order dated 4/5/2018 while granting protection, an undertaking/statement of the Applicants was recorded that they shall be paying appropriate rental compensation to the flat purchasers as the promise of delivery of developed property was not honoured. It appears that endeavour of the Applicants in developing the said property to its fullest extent was not materialized and the financial liability went on mounting. As a consequence, Applicants faced proceedings before NCLT. I am informed that Applicants have already suffered an order of appointment of Resolution Professional. Counsel for the Applicants further informs that appeal at the behest of the Applicants is very much pending and they have every chance of succeeding in such appeal.