Latest news with #DhirendraRana
India Gazette
29-05-2025
- India Gazette
Delhi court orders FIR against Parsvanath Developers on complaint by buyer
New Delhi [India], May 29 (ANI): The Rohini District Court, while disposing of a revision petition, recently directed Delhi police to lodge an FIR against Parsvanath Developers. This direction was given in a matter related to the developers' alleged 17-year delay in building a shop in a Mall in Rohini Sector 10, despite receiving a payment of Rs 33.5 lakh from the complainant. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Dhirendra Rana allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate, who had refused to give direction to an FIR. While allowing the revision, ASJ Dhirendra Rana said, 'In the present case, this Court is of the considered view that accused persons had dishonest intention since the beginning and they had no intention to construct and deliver the property in question to the complainant.' The court said that it is also a matter of record that accused persons tried to delay the proceedings before this court, also under the garb of settling the matter with the complainant. They handed over cheques to the complainant towards settlement, which have also been reported to be dishonoured. 'Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not in agreement with the view of the learned Trial court that no police investigation is required in this case,' ASJ Rana said. Judge Rana said that, in the considered view of this court, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the complainant by ordering the police to register an FIR under relevant Sections of law and to take up the investigation without any further delay. 'Therefore, order of 02.01.2024 is hereby set aside and SHO PS Prashant Vihar is directed to register an FIR against the accused persons against the relevant Section of law as per the contents of the complaint,' ASJ Rana ordered on May 24. He has directed the police to file a compliance report and a copy of the FIR before the Magistrate court within two weeks of today. Complainant Amrit Pal Singh Malhotra had booked a shop in the mall in 2007. He had made a payment of Rs 33.50 lakh. Despite a long delay the shop was not constructed. He had filed a complaint against the developers and their directors. However, the magistrate court had refused to register an FIR. In 2024, he moved to sessions court challenging the order of Magistrate court. In January 2007, the accused advertised their upcoming project, Parsvnath Mall Twin District Centre, Sector-10, Rohini, Delhi. When the accused persons received the full basic price of Rs. 33,50,904, they started avoiding the complainant's calls. The complainant also visited the site to see the progress of construction and found that the said project was at a complete halt, the judgment reads. The complainant filed a complaint in this regard on 29.03.2023 to SHO PS Prashant Vihar and forwarded the same to DCP Rohini. Since no action was taken by the police against the accused persons, the complainant filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr. PC for registration of FIR. (ANI)
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
17-yr-delay: Court orders FIR against realty firm
New Delhi: A Delhi court has directed the registration of an FIR against Parsvnath Developers for a 17-year delay in constructing a shop in a mall in Sector 10, Rohini, for which the customer allegedly paid Rs 33.5 lakh. This is the eighth FIR to be lodged against the company and its directors for allegedly duping various people who paid for residential and commercial properties. The court of additional sessions judge Dhirendra Rana of Rohini Court was hearing a revision petition filed by a complainant, Amrit Pal Singh Malhotra, against a magistrate court order that refused to file an FIR against the developers last year. In all the FIRs, the allegations are more or less similar against the accused persons — that they received a handsome amount from the investors on the pretext of providing them flats/shops, etc., but they never completed their part of the liability. In 2007, Malhotra was allegedly promised occupancy of a shop on the third floor of Parsvnath Mall in Rohini. According to the agreement, the construction was meant to be finished within 30 months. After he paid Rs 33.5 lakh, which was the basic price of the shop, the accused allegedly started avoiding his calls. In March 2019, the developers allegedly issued a letter stating that they were cancelling the agreement and issued a cheque of Rs 33.5 lakh to Malhotra. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like If you have a mouse, play this game for 1 minute Navy Quest Undo The cheque bounced, alleged Malhotra. The court also set aside the trial court order dated Jan 2, 2024 which had said that no police investigation was required in this case. It said that the trial court had not discussed the previous antecedents of the accused, which are glaring in nature. The court ordered the Prashant Vihar police station to file an FIR against the accused and submit a compliance report before the trial court within two weeks.
Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Delhi court orders FIR against developer for 17-year delay after payment of Rs 33 lakh for construction of shop in Rohini mall
A Delhi court Saturday directed the registration of an FIR against Parsvnath Developers for a 17-year delay in the construction of a shop in a mall in Sector 10, Rohini, for which the customer had allegedly paid Rs 33.5 lakh. This is the eighth FIR to be lodged against the company and its directors for allegedly duping various people who paid for houses and commercial spaces. 'In all the above-mentioned FIRs, the allegations are more or less similar against the accused persons that they received handsome amount from the investors on the pretext to providing them flat/shop etc. but they never completed their part of liability resulting in FIR against them. Therefore, it can be safely said that accused persons are adopting the same modus operandi with their investors for the purpose of inducing them to invest in their projects,' said Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana of Rohini Court in his order dated May 24. The court was hearing a revision petition filed by a complainant, Amrit Pal Singh Malhotra, who was represented by advocate Prateek Som, against a 2024 magistrate court order that had refused to file an FIR against the developers. The court disagreed with the trial court's view that no police investigation was required in this case. 'In the considered view of this court, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the complainant by ordering the police to register FIR under relevant Sections of law and to take up investigation without any further delay,' said the court, as it set aside the trial court order dated January 2, 2024. The court ordered the Prashant Vihar police station to file an FIR against the accused and submit a compliance report before the trial court within two weeks, along with a copy of the FIR. It also stated that the trial court had not discussed the previous antecedents of the accused, which are 'glaring in nature'. It noted that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had issued a non-bailable warrant against an accused, Sanjeev Jain. The police chased him for about 60 km and the Special Task Force (STF) arrested him at Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi, the judge said. The case dates back to an agreement from August 2007 between the shop buyer and the developer. The complainant was allegedly promised occupancy of a shop on the third floor of Parsvnath Mall in Rohini. According to the agreement, the construction was meant to be finished within a period of 30 months. After Malhotra paid Rs 33.5 lakh, which was the basic price of the house, the accused allegedly started avoiding his calls. When he visited the construction site of the project, he discovered that all work had come to a complete halt. In March 2019, the developers allegedly issued a letter stating that they were cancelling the agreement and issued a cheque of Rs 33.5 lakh to Malhotra. The cheque was returned, alleged Malhotra, due to 'insufficient funds'. 'It is also admitted case of the accused persons that till date no effective construction has been carried out despite lapse of almost 17 years of the agreement between the parties. As per the recent report filed by Sub Inspector Sandeep only some pillars were constructed at the site and thereafter construction was stopped,' the court noted in its order. Sakshi Chand is working as an Assistant Editor with the Indian Express. She has over a decade of experience in covering crime, prisons, traffic and human interest stories. She has also covered the communal clashes in Kasganj, Aligarh, Trilokpuri riots as well as the North-East Delhi riots. Apart from being a journalist, she is also a National level basketball player and a coach. Before joining the Indian Express, she was working for The Times of India. ... Read More
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Time of India
Delhi Court Rejects Third Bail Plea Of Woman Accused In Acid Attack Case
New Delhi: The court of additional sessions judge Dhirendra Rana dismissed the third bail application of a woman accused in an acid attack case , observing that no fresh grounds were pleaded on behalf of the accused in the present application. The case centres on allegations that the woman, Ruby, and her co-accused attacked a woman at her matrimonial home in 2018. According to the prosecution, on June 17, 2018, the survivor alleged that her sister-in-law Ruby and mother-in-law Guddi, along with her brother-in-law Neeraj, pulled her hair, and her husband Jitender forcefully put acid into her mouth. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi Advocate Aditi Drall, appearing on behalf of the survivor, argued that the nature of the allegations was serious. She further added that the accused filed for bail before the high court, where arguments were heard at length before Delhi High Court, and thereafter, the application was withdrawn. Since then, there has been no change in circumstances, and it is further submitted that the examination of the victim is yet to be completed. The counsel appearing for Ruby, who is HIV positive, submitted before the court that she was falsely implicated in this case due to wear and tear in the matrimonial dispute arising between the injured and her in-laws. She has been in judicial custody since Feb 19, 2024. The counsel also said that the grounds of arrest were not served upon the accused by the IO, and co-accused person Somwati, who was arrested after being declared a proclaimed offender, has been granted bail. The judge rejected these contentions point by point.
