Latest news with #TripartiteAgreement
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
RBI to SC: Have issued norms to monitor use of loan money by realtors
NEW DELHI: As many banks and financial institutions have come under scanner for harassing homebuyers in connivance with real estate companies particularly in case of subvention plan and facing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe on direction of the Supreme Court, banking regulator RBI has virtually shrugged off its responsibility and told SC that it has over the years issued various guidelines and circulars to monitor use of loan amount by developers to prevent misuse and siphoning of funds. It also said that it had directed banks not to resort to intimidation or harassment of any kind for recovery of loan amounts from buyers. Under the subvention scheme, banks disburse the sanctioned amount directly to the the builders, who then have to pay EMIs on the sanctioned loan amount, until possession of the flats is handed over to homebuyers. As many builders did not complete construction and started defaulting in paying the EMIs to the banks as per the Tripartite Agreement, the banks started action against the buyers to recover the EMIs and it is the SC which came to their rescue by ordering a probe into the alleged 'unholy' nexus of builders and banks. In an affidavit filed in the apex court, RBI referred to various directions and guidelines issued by it from time to time and said, "RBI has performed its duty in discharge of its statutory obligations under the various statutes, including those under the BR (Banking Regulation) Act." The regulator said it had way back in 2015 taken cognisance of the practices such as Subvention Schemes and had issued guidelines as per which disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to individuals should be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing project and upfront disbursal should not be made in cases of incomplete or under-construction housing projects. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pinga-Pinga e HBP? Tome isso 1x ao dia se tem mais de 40 anos Portal Saúde do Homem Clique aqui Undo In a relief to many homebuyers who booked flats under subvention plan and have not got possession of their flats because of inordinate delay by developers, SC had in July last year directed that no coercive action could be taken against them by banks or builders regarding payment of EMI and no complaint shall be entertained against them for cheque bounce cases. Seeking intervention, hundreds of homebuyers had moved the SC against banks and builders.
India Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Court shuts Rs 30,000 crore Mumbai land scam case involving real estate tycoon
A special court in Mumbai has accepted the closure report filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in a decades-old case against prominent builder Niranjan Hiranandani and others. The case involved allegations of misuse of land in Powai originally allotted for affordable housing that was allegedly used to construct luxury Judge SE Bangar accepted the ACB's closure report, saying that there was no proof of corruption, monetary gratification, or criminal conspiracy. The judge said, 'The ACB, Mumbai, has rightly concluded that no criminal offence warranting prosecution is made out,' and added, 'The closure reports are based on cogent investigation, verified compliance, and supported by judicial orders of the constitutional court.'advertisementThe allegations were linked to the Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS), executed by Lake View Developers—a Hiranandani Group entity—alongside the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) under a Tripartite Agreement signed on November 19, 1986. Activists had accused the developer of diverting concessional land, meant for affordable housing, to construct luxury flats, allegedly causing a Rs 30,000 crore loss to public funds. In 2012, the ACB registered an FIR following a sessions court direction based on a complaint by activist Santosh Daundkar. The complaint named Hiranandani, then Urban Development Department Secretary Thomas Benjamin, and unknown officers from MMRDA and BMC. Daundkar sought the case be handed over to the CBI and Enforcement ACB initially filed an "A summary" report in 2013, indicating insufficient evidence. This was rejected by the court in 2018. Following a re-investigation, a closure report was filed again in 2019, which Daundkar 2008 and 2010, three Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed by individuals including activist Medha Patkar, raising concerns over developments in the PADS region. However, while disposing of the PILs in 2023, the High Court found that construction and handover obligations were fulfilled. A court-appointed committee confirmed to these proceedings, the ACB said, 'In view of the PILs having attained finality, there is nothing brought on record by the Complainant to infer any element of any criminal offence whatsoever on the part of the alleged accused persons.'In its final report, the ACB said it found no evidence that officers of MMRDA, BMC, or the Urban Development Department engaged in illegal activities or that the developer breached any terms of the Tripartite Agreement or earned unlawful court also said that the High Court had 'conclusively examined' issues related to affordable housing obligations, flat amalgamation, and flat sales. During its investigation, the ACB found no breach of agreement terms, irregularities, or illegal actions by the accused. IN THIS STORY#Mumbai#Maharashtra
United News of India
26-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
Meghalaya BJP leader mulls legal action against govt for violating peace pact
Shillong, May 26 (UNI) Lone Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member in Meghalaya's Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC), Bernard Marak, is mulling taking legal action against the government for violating the tripartite pact with the two militant factions of A'chik National Volunteers Council (ANVC). Marak, who once led the breakaway faction of ANVC commonly known as ANVC-B, accused the Meghalaya government of delaying the implementation of all the points agreed upon in the tripartite agreement. In December 2014, the ANVC led by Dilash Marak and ANVC (B) surrendered arms and signed the affirmation for disbandment before then Chief Minister Mukul Sangma after they signed a historic memorandum of settlement with the central and state governments in September 2014. 'ANVC groups were betrayed, the whole tribal communities were betrayed, and the projects were hijacked by the State Government, leaving ADCs (Autonomous District Councils) in debt,' Marak said, accusing the central and state governments of violating the peace pact for failing to hold monitoring committee meetings to monitor the implementation of the tripartite agreement. 'However, for more than a decade the government cheated us, giving us false hope. It's been more than 10 years, and no committees were formed and no meetings were held to monitor the agreement,' he said. Accusing 'Garo Chief Ministers' of betraying the tribal people's benefit by delaying the implementation of the tripartite agreement, Marak said, 'They also violated the points agreed upon in an agreement. We are left with no option but to serve them a legal notice for violating the agreement.' 'We were assured of a better life through the Tripartite Agreement, but we were targeted, apprehended, and slapped with multiple cases. Now, fighting the government legally is the only option left for us,' he further added. According to Marak, the tripartite agreement focused on strengthening the traditional system to promote local self-governance, transfer of 13 state departments to the District Council, direct funding to the District Council, among others. Instead of implementing the tripartite agreement, Marak accused the state government of hijacking the benefits of the agreement to the state departments. Moreover, the former ANVC-B militant leader accused the NPP-led Executive Committee in the GHADC of misappropriating the Centre's funds against GST, for which a show cause was issued to GHADC multiple times. 'Departments like Health, Education, Transport, Forest, Registration of Births and Deaths, ST certificates, documents related to land like Non-encumbrance, PRC, etc., were unlawfully taken over by the state instead of giving it to the Autonomous District Councils,' he alleged. Further, Marak also challenged Chief Minister Conrad Sangma to prove his leadership by honouring the tripartite agreement instead of making irresponsible statements on projects sanctioned through the pact. Marak also said that Tura Medical College is an outcome of the agreement and that Chief Minister Sangma should first hold a meeting before taking any decision on the project. UNI RRK ARN
Asharq Al-Awsat
13-04-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Gemayel to Asharq Al-Awsat: Khaddam was Assad's Stick to Apply Pressure
Late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad was a masterful negotiator, fiercely protective of his image and reputation. He was known for exhausting his guests with lengthy detours into history before addressing the substance of any talks. Assad had an exceptional ability to restrain his anger, circling around an issue before striking again — often with calculated patience. He avoided coarse language, allowing resentments to speak for themselves, but he never forgave those he believed had tried to derail his vision. Among them, according to accounts, were Yasser Arafat, Kamal Jumblatt, Bashir Gemayel, Amine Gemayel, and Samir Geagea. In dealing with rivals and pressuring opponents, Assad often relied on a trusted enforcer: Abdel Halim Khaddam, his long-time foreign minister and later vice president. In the second part of his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, former Lebanese President Amine Gemayel said Khaddam was Assad's 'stick,' used to assert control. Many Lebanese politicians believed Khaddam's bluntness was not personal, but rather a reflection of an official mandate from his mentor. Assad rarely issued direct threats. Instead, he preferred subtle intimidation — as when he told Gemayel that his aides had once suggested blowing up President Anwar Sadat's plane to prevent him from reaching Jerusalem. Khaddam, the late Syrian strongman's long-serving envoy, was known for humiliating both allies and foes who dared defy Damascus' directives. His tactics were often unsettling — deliberately designed to leave visitors unnerved and pliant by the time they reached Assad's office. In a conversation in Paris during his retirement, Khaddam defended his hardline methods, saying they were not meant to insult but to prevent potentially dangerous confrontations. 'The aim was to avoid escalation that could lead to security agencies taking over, which might have resulted in worse outcomes,' he said. In the same meeting, Khaddam accused former Lebanese President Amine Gemayel of obstructing a political solution in Lebanon, calling him 'hesitant and suspicious.' He also acknowledged Assad was caught off guard when the Tripartite Agreement collapsed. The Syrian leader, Khaddam said, had not believed anyone in Lebanon would openly defy Syria — or the other Lebanese factions who had signed the accord. 'President Assad had many cards to play. President Sarkis had none,' recalled former Lebanese Foreign Minister Fouad Boutros, reflecting on the stark imbalance between Syria and Lebanon during Elias Sarkis's presidency. Assad, he said, had the power to topple or paralyze the Lebanese government before Sarkis even returned to Beirut. 'Sarkis had no leverage over Assad,' Boutros noted. 'But while Sarkis often showed flexibility, he would stand firm when asked to compromise Lebanon's core principles.' Boutros, who played a key role in Lebanon's diplomacy during the civil war, said he had to exercise utmost restraint to keep Khaddam — Syria's often abrasive envoy — from derailing talks with personal attacks or inflammatory language. The dynamic, he suggested, was not unique to Sarkis. It also echoed the later, uneasy relationship between Gemayel and Assad. Gemayel recalled a cold and confrontational relationship with Khaddam, describing him as 'the stick and the poison' used by Assad to pressure Beirut into submission. 'There was no warmth between us from the beginning,' Gemayel told Asharq Al-Awsat. 'Khaddam used underhanded tactics to undermine the presidency and sow division within my team. While President Assad treated me with respect and politeness, he needed someone to apply pressure — and that was Khaddam,' he added. Gemayel said Khaddam was behind all the pressure campaigns Syria waged against him — all with Assad's full knowledge. 'Assad played the courteous statesman. Khaddam handled the dirty work. Syria wanted me to sign agreements harmful to Lebanon's interests, and Khaddam was the one tasked with forcing my hand.' Despite Khaddam's harsh demeanor, Gemayel said he never allowed him to overstep. 'I kept him in check. He didn't dare cross the line with me. We were once in a meeting with President Assad, and Khaddam had been spreading ridiculous rumors beforehand. When he spoke up, I turned to Assad and said: 'Mr. President, we have a problem with Khaddam. Please ask him to stop acting like a spy when dealing with us.'' Khaddam, Gemayel said, tried to intimidate many Lebanese politicians — but not him. 'He was rude, even insolent to the point of absurdity. But he knew that if he said anything out of line with me, I would respond immediately.' Assad's Subtle Control and the Language of Minorities Assad understood early on the fragility of Lebanon's sectarian makeup. To him, the country was a meeting place for minorities — one that always needed an external patron to manage its wars and truces. He allowed for limited victories, but never total defeat, ensuring that no side could do without Syria's oversight. Assad sought to rule Syria indefinitely, with Lebanon as a backyard extension of his regime. Yet unlike his brother Rifaat, he avoided openly sectarian rhetoric or calls for partition. Rifaat, according to Gemayel, once suggested dividing both Syria and Lebanon along sectarian lines during a conversation with Lebanese leaders Walid Jumblatt and Marwan Hamadeh. When asked whether he ever felt his dialogue with Assad was, at its core, a conversation between an Alawite and a Maronite, Gemayel replied: 'No — that was Rifaat's language. He used to say minorities must come together and show solidarity. But that narrative was never pushed by President Assad or his inner circle. It was always tailored to serve their own agenda.' Assad's political strategy was built on gathering leverage — and minority groups were central to that plan. His ties with Lebanon's Druze community, and his clash with Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt, fit squarely within this framework. Assad relied on Syria's own Druze population, as well as the Christian minority, to tighten his grip on the country's diverse communities and align them under the banner of his regime. 'Assad had a firm hold on the minorities,' Gemayel said, adding that 'he brought them all together to make them part of the Syrian system.' Tensions between Syria's Alawite leadership and the country's Sunni majority were well known, Gemayel added, particularly through the candid rhetoric of Assad's brother, Rifaat. 'Rifaat was open about the hostility between Alawites and Sunnis,' Gemayel said. 'In his conversations with us, it was clear. But with President Assad, there was no visible sign of that. What lay beneath the surface, only God knows — but in our dealings with him, we never felt it.' Gemayel Dismisses Reports of a Syria-Lebanon Confederation Proposal Asked about longstanding claims that former Lebanese President Camille Chamoun had once proposed a confederation between Lebanon and Syria to Hafez al-Assad, Gemayel was quick to reject the idea. 'That's absolutely not true,' he said. 'President Chamoun would never have made such a proposal. A lot of things were said at the time. There were even reports that US envoy Dean Brown had suggested relocating Lebanon's Christians to California — all of it nonsense, poetic talk with no grounding in reality.' Gemayel also addressed one of the most controversial moments in US diplomacy during Lebanon's 1988 presidential crisis: the phrase reportedly used by US envoy Richard Murphy — 'Mikhael Daher or chaos.' Daher, a Christian MP close to Damascus, had been floated as the only candidate acceptable to both Syria and the United States. But Washington later distanced itself from the deal. The episode, Gemayel said, underscored a period in which American pressure aligned more with Syrian — and by extension, Israeli — interests, leaving Lebanon's sovereignty hanging in the balance. Gemayel confirmed that US envoy Richard Murphy did indeed issue the stark ultimatum in 1988. The phrase, which became emblematic of foreign interference in Lebanon's presidential crisis, reflected what Gemayel described as Washington's unwillingness to confront Damascus — despite acknowledging its destabilizing role in Lebanon. 'Yes, Murphy said it,' Gemayel affirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat. 'The Americans had a problem — they wanted Syria, and they didn't. They knew Syria was playing a destructive role in Lebanon, but they didn't want to challenge it. They kept trying to find common ground with Syria, not with us.' According to Gemayel, the US saw Daher — a respected Christian parliamentarian close to Damascus — as a palatable compromise. 'They thought Daher was a respectable figure who might be acceptable to the Lebanese, so they went along with Syria's choice,' he said. Washington, he added, had consistently prioritized pragmatism over principle in Lebanon, often aligning with whichever side could deliver results — even if it came at Beirut's expense. 'It was the same with the May 17 Agreement with Israel,' Gemayel said, referring to the short-lived 1983 accord. 'The US couldn't pressure Israel, so Lebanon had to pay. And they couldn't pressure Syria either — Syria was stubborn, had resources, and they didn't want a confrontation. So they kept trying to sell us solutions that weren't in Lebanon's interest.' 'The Americans were always looking for the quickest deal,' he added. 'They wanted to please both Syria and Israel. With Syria, it was clear — they didn't want to upset Assad, because they knew who held the real power in Lebanon.' Gemayel said that while he personally held the reins in decision-making and negotiations with Syria during his time in office, several close advisers and intermediaries played essential roles in laying the groundwork for dialogue with Damascus. 'The relationship and final decisions were in my hands,' he told Asharq Al-Awsat. 'I was the one doing the actual negotiating. But when it came to preparation, the late Jean Obeid played a very valuable role. He was intelligent, committed to Lebanon's interests, and had close ties with the Syrians. He couldn't get everything done, but he managed to ease certain issues,' said Gemayel. Gemayel also credited Eli Salem, another aide, for navigating delicate talks with Syrian officials — particularly with Khaddam. 'Salem had a knack for getting through on specific points,' Gemayel said. 'He had good chemistry with Khaddam, and that helped, especially since Khaddam and I didn't get along.' One figure who unexpectedly played a constructive role, according to Gemayel, was Brigadier General Jamil al-Sayyed, then an intelligence officer stationed in Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley. 'You may be surprised,' he said, 'but Jamil al-Sayyed was very helpful. Whenever I was heading to Damascus, I would stop in the Bekaa to meet him. He gave me very precise insights into what was happening at the Syrian presidential palace and the broader picture in Damascus. He was well-informed, sincere, and provided intelligence that wasn't widely available — information that truly benefited Lebanon.' Asked whether Syria was uneasy about the role of veteran journalist and diplomat Ghassan Tueni in his administration, Gemayel said the Syrians had little affection for him. 'There was never any warmth toward Ghassan,' he said. 'He came with me to Syria just once, and it was clear there was tension. Whenever he was present, things got heated. Ghassan and Khaddam were like a ping-pong match — constantly hitting the ball back and forth.' The friction, Gemayel explained, stemmed in large part from Tueni's association with An-Nahar, the Beirut daily he helped lead, which often published sharp criticism of Syria. 'Syria never appreciated An-Nahar,' Gemayel said. 'Even if Ghassan tried to distance himself from specific articles, the content was out there for everyone to see — and the Syrians didn't forget it.'
