[ecis2016.org] Blaming demonetisation for its inability to raise Rs 10 crores for refunding home buyers in its disputed Emerald Court project in Noida, real estate major Supertech has asked the Supreme Court for an additional two months’ time
Real estate major Supertech, on January 6, 2017, expressed its inability in the Supreme Court due to demonetisation, to deposit Rs 10 crores for refunding home buyers who want to wriggle out of its disputed Emerald Court project in Noida. A bench of justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi, was urged by the developer to grant two months’ time for depositing the amount.
You are reading: Supertech to SC: Not been able to raise funds due to note ban
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for the firm, said that due to the demonetisation drive, it was not able to raise Rs 10 crores to be deposited in the apex court’s registry. He sought two months’ time to deposit the amount with the registry as directed by the apex court. The bench then asked the developer to deposit the amount by March 20 but it made it clear that it will be the final opportunity for depositing the amount.
[ecis2016.org] Sink or die, investors need to be paid back: SC to Supertech
The apex court had on November 8, 2016, directed Supertech to deposit Rs 10 crores by January 3, 2017, for refunding those home buyers who want to wriggle out of its disputed project, which has been found to be non-compliant of building laws by the NBCC. It had noted that some of the home buyers wanted to remain in the building but some wanted refunds of the investment made.
Read also : Three Largest Commercial Projects in Noida
The National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) in its report had said, “The open space available between the two towers Tower 1 (Aster 2) and Tower 17 is less than 20.45 metres, as prescribed in the NBC rules. Thus, from the above observations and inferences, the NBCC concludes that the two towers are not compliant with the REG 24.2.1(6) of the Noida Building Regulations, 2010.”
The apex court had earlier said that if the project is violative of the building laws, then it will be demolished. The court had on September 6, 2016, given a stern message to the firm, asking it to return money to investors who wanted refund. The company had earlier told the court that a total of 628 people had approached the company, of whom 274 have sought other arrangements, 74 have asked for re-investment and 108 have sought refund.
Copyright belongs to: ecis2016.org