Unitech directors not above law: Consumer commission

Sandeep Rana

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 14

While announcing three-years sentence to realty firm Unitech’s two fugitive bosses in yet another case, the UT State Consumer Commission passed strong comments against them. 

“The attitude and conduct of the judgment debtors gives us an impression that the high and mighty can defy provisions of the law with impunity. ...(they) have given an impression, as if they are bigger than law. They are treating orders passed by this statutory authority like  waste paper. They are capable of defying the orders passed by showing utmost disrespect,” read the order pronounced by the commission, headed by Justice Jasbir Singh (retd).

Both Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, managing directors of Unitech Commercial Towers II, have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of  three years each, along with Rs 10,000 fine each. The company has also been fined Rs 10,000.

The commission has also issued non-bailable warrants against Chandras for September 15.  The convicts were earlier declared proclaimed offenders (POs) by the commission.  The duo was labelled POs after they failed to appear before the authority despite being issued bailable and non-bailable warrants in 13 execution applications.

They had failed to obey the order of the commission, thus the applicants had moved execution petitions.

In the present case, Amar Singh, a native of Patiala, had purchased a plot in a project launched by Unitech Ltd under the name ASPEN GREENS in Sector 107, Uniworld City, Mohali, for a total sale consideration of Rs 76,72,579 and the buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties on July 21, 2011.

The complainant had paid an amount of Rs 69,61,831. The builders had committed to deliver possession of the plot within a period of 18 months from the date of execution by January 20, 2013 but failed to do so.

Neither was he given the possession of the plot nor was his payment refunded despite repeated requests. Then the complainant approached the commission, which directed the firm to refund the amount along with the interest at the rate of 15 per cent compounded quarterly and also imposed a penalty on them. However, the firm failed to implement this order after which the execution plea was moved.