Latest news with #Buds)Act
Time of India
15-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Accused ‘sell' attached properties
T'puram: The accused in Nirmal Krishna deposit fraud have reportedly sold several properties owned by them despite being attached by under Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (Buds) Act, 2019, as part of revenue recovery measures. TOI is in possession of new title deeds that show several properties worth crores of rupees at Kuthukal village in Neyyattinkara and Parassala were reportedly sold. An auditorium at Parassala was sold for Rs 6 crore and 185 machines of a factory in Kinfra were also sold with the silent consent of officials concerned. Some officials at the collectorate, Kinfra and other departments backed the accused in selling the attached properties, alleged Nirmal Krishna Nikshepa Samrakshaka Samithi (NKNSS). "After the Buds authority attached the properties, the accused approached various courts and obtained stay orders. These stay orders don't permit them to sell the properties, which were attached. But the accused used them tactically to sell the properties. Some officials worked with vested interest to delay attachment proceedings against several properties. This helped the accused sell the properties before being attached," said S M Nair, an NKNSS member. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Lagrange: Here's The Average Price of a 6-Hour Gutter Upgrade Read More Undo It is learned that the accused approached potential buyers to sell a factory at Kinfra for Rs 4 crore. The factory was attached by Buds authority. Later, the attachment was lifted after finding that the accused had taken it over from Usha Umesh, 53, a woman entrepreneur, by forging documents. Using this situation, the accused are planning to sell the factory. "There were 585 machines in the factory and the accused sold 185 of them for crores of rupees with the silent approval of Kinfra officials. I was contacted by a person whom the accused approached with a proposal to sell the factory and remaining machines for Rs 4 crore," said Umesh. As per preliminary findings, a cheating worth Rs 1,000 crore took place in the Nirmal Krishna fraud with over 13,000 depositors of Nirmal Krishna Chit Funds in Thiruvananthapuram and Kanyakumari districts losing money. Offering high interest, the accused accepted deposits from people but the firm later collapsed. The economic offence wing of Tamil Nadu crime branch is probing a case registered over the fraud and cases have also been registered in Thiruvananthapuram, Marayamuttom, Parassala, Vattiyoorkavu and Cantonment police stations.
Time of India
06-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Nirmal Krishna deposit fraud: Home department directs Kinfra to return land to woman entrepreneur
Thiruvananthapuram: The home department by an order on Friday directed Kinfra to return the 50-cent land to a woman entrepreneur Usha Umesh, 53, from whom the land was seized by the key accused in the Nirmal Krishna deposit fraud. Until a few years ago, Umesh was operating Pooja Garments on the land at Kinfra Park, but the accused K Nirmalan evicted her using fraudulent methods. He then took over the land and the 54,000 sq ft building at the park by flouting all norms. The accused then reportedly paid Rs 89 lakh as a lease premium for the land to Kinfra. The land and factory are currently owned by one Sreejith, a close aide of Nirmalan and an accused in the deposit fraud. The order issued by the home department also directs Kinfra to remit the lease premium of Rs 89 lakh to Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (Buds) Act, Authority, which initiated recovery proceedings against the accused. The fraud came to light when the authority legally attached the land and factory owned by the accused in the Nirmal Krishna fraud, as the woman submitted proof of ownership of land and factory. As per the Buds Act, the authority has no power to attach a third-party property. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Azioni USA fino a 1€ BG SAXO Scopri di più Undo Buds Authority later revoked the attachments, directing Kinfra to pay the lease premium paid by the accused to reimburse the depositors who lost money in the deposit fraud. "Kinfra leased out the land to Nirmalan when it was already owned by me. Kinfra could not produce the pact when it was sought through an RTI query. Now I am happy that the department directed Kinfra to give my land back," said Umesh. She may need to pay some premium amount to enter into a new pact with Kinfra, it was learned. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Time of India
Buds Authority seeks collector's help for remitting lease premium paid to Kinfra by Nirmal Krishna scam accused
Thiruvananthapuram: The Buds Authority sent a request to the district collector to direct Kinfra to remit the lease premium of Rs 89 lakh, which was collected from the accused in the Nirmal Krishna deposit fraud for leasing out a 50-cent land for operating a garment factory. Earlier, the authority attached all the properties owned by the accused as part of recovery measures and one of the attached properties was the 50-cent land at Kinfra. However, during the process, the authority found that the land was actually owned by a woman entrepreneur Usha Umesh, 53, and it was fraudulently taken by K Nirmalan, the key accused in the Nirmal Krishna fraud. As per the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (Buds) Act, the authority has no power to attach a tri-party asset and its powers are limited to attaching the assets directly owned by the accused. Buds Authority revoked recovery measures against the land and requested Kinfra to remit the lease premium paid after deducting the amounts for the years the land was used by the accused. Despite sending several reminders, there was no progress from Kinfra. Following this, Buds Authority sent a letter to the district collector asking to direct Kinfra in this regard. An RTI application was filed by the woman entrepreneur seeking the details of the pact between Kinfra and the accused regarding the land. However, Kinfra claimed they were not in possession of such a document. This raises questions about how the accused possessed the land in Kinfra, which was owned by a woman. The woman alleged that she was evicted from the land by the accused with the help of officials concerned and some trade union workers.
