A periods court docket right here has rejected an anticipatory bail plea by means of Bengaluru-based realtor Sushil Pandurang Mantri and his spouse Snehal is a crook case registered on February 12.
The case was once filed via a 74-year-old homebuyer from Wadgaonsheri, who alleged failure to supply a flat he had booked in 2015 in a project, ‘Vantage’, through Mantri Dwellings Pvt Ltd in Kharadi. He additionally alleged the company was once now not returning the cash he had paid as section consideration.
The kingdom instructed the court docket that the candidates (Mantri couple) have deceived 123 flat shoppers of Rs70 crore in the equal mission by means of diverting cash for different purposes. “Also, we delivered to the court’s note that the candidates mortgaged the equal challenge to two special personal banks to elevate over Rs160 crore,” public prosecutor Vishwas Satpute instructed TOI on Sunday.
Sessions choose G G Bhalchandra discovered on July eight that the applicants’ “prima facie involvement is evident” from archives on record. The choice cited that a crook court docket in Bengaluru declared Sushil Mantri an “absconding accused” and many crook instances have been filed in opposition to him there. Snehal Mantri too did now not cooperate with the investigating officer in violation of the period in-between safety granted earlier, the court docket said. The Mantris have companies in Singapore and Dubai and the opportunity of their absconding can’t be dominated out, the courtroom added.
The Mantris’ attorney S K Jain stated they had been ready for guidelines from his clients’ prison group in Bengaluru about the future path of action. “The courtroom did now not reflect onconsideration on our legitimate submissions bearing on to a RERA appellate tribunal’s instructions in this matter, that the hobby quantity is adjusted at the time of handing over of the residences to the purchasers.”
Jain said, “Once the count had long passed to RERA, there was once no way the candidates should be prosecuted underneath the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA). But the court docket right here did now not think about these points.”
Mohammad Afzal Ansari, the complainant, had signed a settlement with the association on August 25, 2015, and paid Rs42.41 lakh of the agreed consideration, for the flat to be delivered via December 2017. The task stays “incomplete”.
Ansari’s FIR did now not title the Mantri couple, however, three of the corporate representatives.
Senior inspector Sunil Jadhav said, “The preliminary criticism in opposition to Mantri and his spouse was once by using 12 flat purchasers. Later, extra human beings approached us, and we recorded their statements also. Many others have approached us, and we will report their statements in the due direction of time.”
Chenoy Ceil Lawyer 