Skip to main content

Maytas told to refund money to customers & Banks criticised - Consumer Commission

In an order that will send a warning signal to fraudulent developers and errant bankers, the AP state consumer disputes redressal commission told M/s Maytas Properties Pvt Ltd to refund the entire amount it had collected from three aggrieved customers, who paid hefty amounts ranging from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 80 lakh towards flats in the company's proposed Hill County venture at Bachupalli in Rangareddy district.

Though the flats were not constructed, the banks granted loans to customers and handed over the total money to Maytas and started deducting the same from the customers. Blasting the banks for releasing amounts despite construction having not taken place at Maytas Hill County, the commission said, "You (banks) have to release the loan amount in a phased manner based on the progress of the construction. In the current case, you gave the amount to developer without the latter making any progress in construction of flats,'' the commission said, and directed the banks to stop forthwith collecting EMIs from the customers. The commission also warned the banks, who threatened to take customers to CIBIL, over non-payment of EMIs. "Instead of customers, the banks should be referred to CIBIL for their erroneous functioning in this case," the commission said.

Warning the bankers that they cannot threaten the customers that their names will be referred to CIBIL, the consumer commission made it clear that it is the names of the banks that have to be referred to CIBIL for their erroneous functioning in the current matter.

Earlier, three customers, Ravikanth Veda, Kalidindi Jhansi Lakshmi, Neravati Rajasekhar, approached the commission and sought justice in the case. They narrated how they were let down by Maytas and their bankers, Axis Bank, ING Vysya Bank and Deutsche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd. which they said acted in an inhuman and irrational manner despite knowing the fact that the customers being victims in the entire episode.

The state consumer disputes redressal commission, comprising its presiding member M Shreesha and another member S Bhujanga Rao, ordered the Maytas and the banks to refund the entire amount to customers with 12% interest per annum along with a compensation of Rs one lakh and Rs 10,000 towards legal costs.

The commission rejected the claims of the current management of Maytas which has been repeatedly citing the pending case before company law board. The customers are not a party to that and hence it is not binding on them, the commission said. The banks have suppressed certain rules and are unnecessarily highlighting an irrelevant authorization given by the customers to recover EMIs from the customers. Banks have released the amounts contrary to the tripartite agreements reached between the developer, customer and the bank, the commission said. Hence the banks should suffer the consequential losses for not applying due diligence before relying on a developer merely basing on the brand value of the developer in the beginning, the commission's presiding member Shreesha, who wrote the judgment, said in her order.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Maytas-told-to-refund-money-to-customers/articleshow/20836741.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil