Palais Royal Vol-4.pdf

Index SECTION

SUBJECT

PAGE NO.

Sec on I

UHRF Introduc on

Sec on II

About UHRF Intensive Research

3-4

Sec on III

About various representa on sent to various authori es

5-6

Sec on IV

Illegali es in construc on

Sec on V

Con nuous fire tragedies in India

Sec on VI

Complete Case Study

3

7 - 12 13 - 29

1.

About the Project Palais Royale

2.

Background of the Promoters/Group

3.

All Illegali es in the project Palais Roayle

i.

First give norms about refuge area and fire safety

41- 42

ii.

Second, illegali es about refuge area

43 - 45

iii.

Illegali es about Public Parking Lot

46 - 48

iv.

Illegali es as per Speaking Order dated 12.09.2013 of Mr. Sita Ram Kunte

49 - 52

v.

All li ga on in respect of illegali es in the project

53 - 54

vi.

Frees hold and lease hold land chart and RERA website

55

vii.

No Compounding of Project

56

4.

Financial frauds and illegali es by the promoters of SRUIL

57 - 60

5.

Strategic planning of Promoters

61 - 77

6

Nexus of SRUIL with MCGM

78 - 79

7

Majority of flats buyer is investors

Sec on VI 8

30 31 - 40

80

Ques ons needed to be solved by Media

81 - 82

Various Press Releases

83 - 98

INTRODUCTION We, United Human Rights Federation (hereinafter UHRF), are a society registered under the provisions of The Societies Registration Act, 1860. UHRF is a non-political and non-sectarian national organization devoted to promote strengthen and preserve democratic system bereft of favoritism, nepotism and corruption in the country and to protect rights, interest and dignity of common people. Since its formation, UHRF is engaged in taking up various common problems of the people for effective redressal and has been relentlessly engaged in safeguarding public interests.

The UHRF has been doing research for ensuring strict financial discipline in the public and corporate sectors and while doing so, it came across various irregularities & illegalities in some of the real estate developments and construction companies whereby they often twist and grossly violates the rules by unlawful planning and construction of additional / unauthorized area beyond of their entitlement. To make the gravity of the current situation and UHRF's serious concern more understandable over multiple painful incidents around the country with countless life loss due to the illegal construction and corruption, United Human Rights Federation eagerly wish to represent in detail about it through its research document and seek a fruitful, strict punishments and action against the violators through implementing the laws in such a way that no one ever dare to violate the laws. The UHRF humbly submit that the requisite laws, byelaws and policies have been framed by the government(s) time to time. The builders though have started following the norms, however, only with the sole motive to get utilized the premises at their whims and fancies. They sell or give on lease the areas meant for Basement, Car Parking, Balconies, Terrace, Verandas, Garden, Lobby(ies) and Lounges etc. which in no way are allocated for sale or given on lease or for any commercial activity. These unauthorized occupancies are very risky & dangerous for the inhabitants and public who visits such premises.

3

It is stated that the modernization through urbanization in India is opening up new avenues of opportunities in real estate using high rise buildings, shopping malls, multiplexes, IT and pharmaceutical hubs etc. No doubt modernization and urbanization in India has become a common feature, still it has its own consequential threats. The illegal construction and misuse within a given space may trigger some alarming conditions, which the builders and construction companies have been ignoring since long back. The builders / contractors by keeping safety measures at bay, sells these areas to earn profit at the cost of human lives. Although few civic authorities are having some kind of auditing and / or monitoring mechanism, however they indifferently use to overlook the same in the absence of strict enforceable regulations and constant vigilance. In furtherance, against the financial irregularities of S.Kumars Group of Companies and its real estate construction arm Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL), the developers of 'Palais Royale' project, the UHRF had filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Writ Petition No. 915 of 2014 against various regulatory, supervisory & sanctioning authorities including the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC/MCGM).

4

VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS OF UHRF 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 07.11.2014 after hearing the Applicant/ Petitioner UHRF on various issues raised in the PIL, passed an order permitting/ directing the UHRF to – “....... approach the appropriate Forums by making appropriate application(s)/ representations for appropriate relief/ reliefs”. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, UHRF approached to several authorities including The Hon'ble President of India, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra and to the Central as well as the State Urban Development Ministers. The UHRF also approached to various regulatory & supervisory authorities like Municipal Commissioner, MCGM, Anti Corruption Bureau, CBI, Economic Offences Wing etc against the frauds, cheating and financial scams and about the various irregularities and unauthorized constructions in the project 'Palais Royale'. In the said representations/complains, UHRF has requested the concerned authorities to initiate enquiries and investigations for the illegal activities of SKumars Group of Companies and specifically their real estate arm M/s Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. There is nothing worse than witnessing your worst nightmare turning into a horrific reality To ensure safety of innocent citizens of the country from any fire tragedy the UHRF has already begun its way to successfully attain it's vision of having a “Fire Safe Nation” and on that note the UHRF has already explained its concern over the current situation of violation of fire safety norms in multiple platforms. It has expressed and conveyed its concern to His Excellency, The President of India dated September 20, 2017. Along with His Excellency President of India, the representation has also been delivered to more than 700 dignitaries such as the Hon'ble Vice President of India, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, The Hon'ble Chief Justice and all the judges of Supreme Court of India, all the Hon'ble Chief Justices of High Courts of India, all the Hon'ble

5

Governors of States & Union Territories, all the Hon'ble Chief Ministers, the Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha, all the Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of States, Government of India, the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, all the Secretaries of Govt. of India, all Commissioner of Police, and many more for the kind perusal and to bring this grave matter under the kind attention of the authorities. The UHRF has also sought from all of them for their kind suggestion, guidance and valuable time to put an end to the ongoing crime in High – Rise construction methodology. It has also came to know to the UHRF that Representation / Complaint against the frauds and illegalities of M/s Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd for denying just & lawful claims to its innocent and bonafide investors has been conveyed to more than 27 government authorities, civic bodies, private entities & dignitaries which is discussed in the brochure in detail. The Authorities are such as Vice President, New Delhi, Prime Minister of India, New Delhi, Hon'ble Minister for Finance, New Delhi, Hon'ble Minister for Home Affairs, New Delhi, Minister for Urban Development, New Delhi, Chief Minister of Maharashtra (as Maharashtra Government representing in scheme of BIFR), Urban Development Minister of Maharashtra, Secretary, Urban Development, Maharashtra, The Chairman/Managing Director of IDBI Bank (as Operating Agency in scheme of BIFR), The Chairman/Managing Director of Central Bank of India (as payment made by the applicant in scheme of BIFR), The Chairman/Managing Director of Canara Bank (as payment made by the applicant in scheme of BIFR), The Chairman/Managing Director of UCO Bank (as payment made by the applicant in scheme of BIFR), The Chairman/Managing Director of Bank of Baroda (as lead banker in rehabilitation scheme of BIFR and payment made by the applicant), The Commissioner MCGM (as representing State of Maharashtra), The Commissioner of Police, New Delhi (for taking necessary action), The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai (for taking necessary action), The ACP, Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai, Dy. ACP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, The Senior Inspector, PS Worli, Mumbai , The Director CBI ((for taking necessary action and investigation), Chairman, RERA (Highest Authority of Real Estate Project), Shri Alok Shankar Lal Kasliwal (being family member and partner of S.K. Group of Companies), Shri Ambuj Abhay Kasliwal (being family member and ExDirector of SRUIL), Shri Warij Abhay Kasliwal (being family member and Ex-Director of SRUIL), Janhit Manch (pursing against irregularities and fraud by SRUIL), M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (earlier known as Shree Ram Mills Limited (SML), M/s S.Kumars Finance & Investment Ltd. (now renamed as M/s. Landmarc Leisure Corporation Ltd.) (as payment made to them), M/s S.Kumars Tyre Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (as payment made to them) & M/s CVIL Infra Limited, Mumbai.

6

MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS & IRREGULARITIES IN REAL ESTATE SECTOR Through rigorous research done by UHRF, the on-going violation committed by different corporate builders in the real estate project came right out of the blue. All these violations are just not only limited in a specific criteria, it is wide spreaded around all real estate sectors whether it is in Nursing Home, Hospitals, Resorts, Airports or Schools, Colleges, Universities etc. The ongoing violation in multiple areas like misusing parking areas, basement, podium etc. & most importantly misuse of Refuge Areas are continuously leading the increasing number of unintentional accidents in all metro cities. I

Alarming & Worst Conditions at Multi specialty Hospitals & Nursing Homes

Ÿ Are Multispecialty Hospitals & Nursing Homes Safe?

India, since its independence though had seen considerable development in healthcare sector with mushrooming of multispecialty hospitals in major cities; still it lags behind to complement the needs of the day. Almost 13,000 well-equipped hospitals might not be sufficient for a country which is second most populous after China. Though, the development is still being done in this sector to provide hi-tech medical service to masses in as many ways as possible, still there is something that raises security concerns.

7

Ÿ Security concerns in Multi specialty

Hospitals During breakout of fire in a hospital having sprinklers-studded facility isn't sufficient. Such urgent conditions need a complete or partial building evacuation. But, when a hospital has multilevel occupied floors, a lot of questions and concerns pop out pointing towards the difficulty of evacuating hundreds or perhaps thousands of patients at a time. Urgent Evacuation Facility Needed in a Multispecialty Hospitals If there is a need of evacuation, the first way that comes in mind is the stairways. Unless smashed by fire or made unsustainable by the smoke, the interior stairway of the hospital tends to be the suitable exit. But, the space, which should be used as interior stairways, is being used for commercial purposes by constructing ancillary medical facilities and so on. A full-fledge operation theatre constructed in basement, illegal medical equipment stores, kitchens etc. in the basement or any other space, creates hurdle in urgent evacuation plans in case of an emergency.

8

II

The illegal Constructions and Safety Issues in Luxury Hotels & Resorts

III

Un-authorized Constructions at Airports During the urbanization or development of Indian airports, authorities overlook certain safety measures considering them as they are of no harm or trifling. This puts thousands of traveller's life in jeopardy.

Travel and tourism in India is perhaps the most flourishing sector with demand growing at 10.1% per annum. This sector foresees tremendous growth opportunities and includes cultural, heritage, medical, sports as well as medical tourism. To their worsening, many five star hotels are unaware of these small but prevalent issues, and over the last couple of years, major unauthorized constructions have been done jeopardizing the life of the visitors and guests. The space where there should be an exit gateway, has been turned into a commercial place or a part of the amenity center obstructing the required exist plan during an emergency. Government has handed out certain guidelines for hotels and resorts to address their Fire safety issues, however hardly anyone pays attention to. The only thing that one keeps in mind is how to spin money out of this million-dollar industry.

The airports which in general terms should have opened lobbies, they have been cove re d i l l e g i t i m ate l y a n d w i t h o u t considering the law have been roofed with fibre sheets, soft glasses and other materials which are prone to fire. The occupiers of the Airports have not just covered the lobbies but they have covered other built-up open spaces too. Insufficient exit gateways, doors or windows within the premises of an airport creates major safety threats.

SHOPPING COUNTERS ON PASSAGE

ADVERTISEMENTS IN PASSAGE

9

IV

Hazardous Constructions at Schools, Colleges & Universities schools are also latest victims of illegal constructions. Playing sections are constructed in the basements which are meant to be unclog ged and opened. Playgrounds are the most affected areas, which are either occupied for kids amusement park or turned into a game zone. This haphazard, unlawful occupancy of nursery schools in no way is appropriate as it may put innocent kids' life in danger.

The illegal constructions in schools, colleges and universities may sound bizarre, but it's the bitter truth in today's money-minded world. The schools, colleges and other educational institutes or university compounds, which are meant to be freed from any obstructions, are being used as space to run shops, stationery / stores, uniform shops and other purposes. In corridors, haphazard occupancy can be seen in the form of a cafeteria or a canteen. School / University food service typically involves folding tables that are positioned and swapped throughout the day. The indoor gyms running within the complex of university / school basement are also an example of unlawful occupancy. In fact, underground godowns or store rooms are quite common which are of course unethical constructions. Nursery

10

V

Ÿ Misuse of Parking Area, Basement, Podium

Violation of Fire Norms in High Rise Buildings

etc.

A shopping-mall / multiplexes / high rise buildings / public parking lots are usually a jam-packed place. It can play havoc if a rumor is spread out in these shopping malls during a massive gathering. The shops or retail outlets in all commercial buildings leave no stone unturned to lure their customers with dazzling light shows, perfect lighting systems and soon. Stressing on fire safety is of utmost importance as a residential or commercial high-rise building isn't one building, but an interlocked building having multiple store, objects and resources inside out. In case of fire breaking out at any shopping center or mall may cause devastating effects killing many people and fuming out resources worth thousands of Crores.

11

Now- a- days the builders are not providing free and adequate parking space in their commercial or residential complexes. The Bombay High Court's recent order stipulates that parking space cannot be sold. Similarly, the civic Development Control Rules have in clear terms specified that basements are meant for parking purpose only. The misuse of basement areas cannot be allowed and has been condemned in the manner - "As per the development control rules, while giving permission for construction of a building does not give sanction for use of basements for residential or commercial purposes. The use of basements is allowed only as store, godown and a safe deposit vault.”

However, the Builders / Developers are continuing to misuse and sell basement / parking / podium areas to the customers for commercial uses. Parking Lots (Areas) in High Rise Buildings are also not spared from corruption & illegal construction: In high rise buildings / shopping mall / multiplexes and all types of commercial and residential buildings Ÿ Basements are allowed for car parking only

but 50% of the basement is being used for different commercial and residential purposes. Ÿ Balconies, open spaces & lounges are being

converted into food courts, restaurants, coffee shops etc. Ÿ Terraces are being used as multi-cuisine

restaurants, bars, discotheque & galleria. Ÿ The side portion of stairs cases is illegally

being used as go down or to store scrap. Ÿ Most of the commercial buildings are not

e q u i p p e d w i t h p ro p e r f i r e f i g h t i n g equipments. Ÿ In case of any untoward incident, people

can't get open and unhindered access to their safety.

12

Con nuous & Unending Fire Tragedies in India India has seen many tragic fire incidents that claimed innocent lives mainly due to lack of safety measures & sloppiness of the administra on which has lead to human errors and greediness to spin as much money as one can. This shows how just for the sake of money one's life can be compromised and even can push so many lives towards sufferings and deaths. A er a thorough meta-analy c research, the UHRF has gathered in detailed number of informa on concerning unauthorized construc ons & fire safety in recent mes and fallout of the irregular construc ons. A number of major fire incidents that took place resulted in worst situa on leaving a dras c & painful impact over the people. Major among such Fire Tragedies are – Fire at Grand Hotel in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi on January 27, 2008 and Uphaar Cinema Fire also at New Delhi on June 13, 1997 killing 59 people. Some major fire tragedies in India between 1995 to 2017 and its impact on people has been enumerated by the applicant in accompanying Informa on Brochure. The Times of India dated 05.07.2014 has reported that at least 1 Lakh buildings lacks fire safety measures in Bengaluru. This news came to the knowledge of public only a er a major incident occurred in the Carlton Tower, Bengaluru. It is just a p of the ice berg, there may be many more buildings lacking fire safety. In the incident of Carlton Towers, 9 people lost their lives when it went up in flames and it was proved that Almas Centre where a jewellery showroom was gu ed was not the only building to have discarded fire safety norms there are many like it.

13

There are lots of incidents of fire tragedies reported frequently and cau oning the authori es. S ll many buildings are being constructed unauthorizedly in Mumbai, Pune, Thane, Delhi & NCR region without adhering to the safety regula ons/norms. The developers in these metropolis are viola ng the Na onal Building Code, 2005 and their respec ve applicable Building Development Acts / Regula ons. Surprisingly, there is no effort of constant monitoring of the construc on ac vi es by the regula ng agencies which is more alarming and dangerous for the public.

Though the strong and commi ed determina on of UHRF and delibera on of UHRF's grave concern toward mul ple pla orm but due to lack of coopera on & an cipa on from all government, nongovernment, private sector on these fire safety issues, negligence in inspec on and not taking strict ac ons against the viola on commi ed by the promoters, builders, developers etc., we had to witness the horrific fire tragedy of Kamala Mills Fire leading to death of more than 14 people and injuring more than 19.

CASE STUDY: KAMALA MILLS FIRE DISASTER The very recent horrific roof top pub fire accident in Mumbai at ' 1 above' around 12.30 a.m. on December 29, 2017 causing death to at least 14 innocent lives and leaving 21 people injured as per report ll now have shook the people of the country in complete grave and sadness in a massive way. S ll the govt. authori es, media, poli cians, businessmen are going to ignore the extreme need of fire safety audit in India via keeping their mouth shut or The rules and regula on regarding fire safety norms along with extreme need of Fire Safety Audit would be implemented!! The massacre happened with Kamala Mills Fire not just point the finger to the government authori es towards negligence of Fire Safety arrangement and Audit nut also reveals the fact that most of the conven on centers are either illegally built or con nuing their business in mul ple irregular way.

14

KAMALA FIRE ACCIDENT CASUALTIES DETAILS AS PER THE REPORT CAME TILL DECEMBER 29, 2017 – A CHRONOLOGICAL DATA OF MISFORTUNATES S. NO.

NAME OF THE PERSON

AGE

GROUP / INDIVIDUAL CASUALTIES REASONS

Khushbu Mehta Bhansali

28

Kinjal Shah

21

Vishwa Lalani

23

Dhairya Lalani

26

Two US based brothers died along with their aunt in the accident. They have been found dead in the washroom

Kavita Dharani

36

Both of them died in the toilet due to suffoca on.

Tejal Gandhi

36

Manisha Shah

49

Shefali Doshi

46

Parul Ladkawala

49

5

Prachi Khetani

31

Recently flown from US Prachi Khetani died in the accident due to suffoca on in the washroom with the last words to her friend via phone “"I am in the bathroom... I will come out in five minutes. I am fine, don't worry,"

6

Pri Rajgira

41

She has died also due to suffoca on leaving her husband alone who is already moaning for the death of his mother just 15 days ago. Now the death of his wife and mother in just 15 days completely broke him mentally.

7

Yasha Thakkar

22

She has especially came to Mumbai for the very first me from Gujarat to celebrate the upcoming New Year with many excitements and plans led her to tragic death due to suffoca on in the accident.

8

Jeet

49

Death occurred due to suffoca on

1

2

Both of them were at the restaurant to celebrate Miss. Khusbhu Mehta's birthday. But died because of suffoca on.

Pramila 3

4

All the three women were not only best friends but also are rela ves from a single family who were died altogether because of being present at the restaurant to have dinner.

15

While pursuing our research it has came under the observation that, as per the news published in Rediff.com on December 29, 2017, publishing as “Kamala Mills fire: They blew the whistle but civic body ignored them”, Mangesh Kasalkar, an MNS worker, and RTI activist Iyas Khan had repeatedly warned the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation about the illegal extensions and violations by 1 Above, a rooftop pub inside the labyrinthine Kamala Mills in Mumbai's Lower Parel, where 14 people where died in a fire on Thursday night, but nothing was done. Both these activists had repeatedly brought the illegalities of several such pubs and rooftop restaurants in Kamala Mills and the neighbouring Raghuvanshi Mills to the notice of the civic authorities. Both Kasalkar and Khan contended that precious lives could have been saved had the local municipal authorities paid attention to their repeated complaints. UHRF has also time and again through letters and representations made its endeavours to shake the conscience of the local bodies and responsible authorities in regard to ill mannered fire safety arrangements the utter failure of the authorities, they let the accidents occur in highly populated areas of the metro cities.

16

SENSE OF AWAKING IN GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AFTER MANY VALUABLE AND INNOCENT LIVES ARE LOST, ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE COMING UPON THE AUTHORITIES FROM COMMON PEOPLE AND CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT GETTING EXPOSED INFRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD

NAME OF THE NEWSPAPER

DATE

REPORTS AS PER MENTIONED SUBJECT

Sense of Awaking in Government Authori es a er many valuable and innocent lives are Lost

Jan 1, 2018

Over 100 BMC officials face enquiry, ac on

The Times of India City

Dec 30, 2017

Crackdown a er Mumbai fire: Illegal structures at 314 sites demolished, 7 hotels sealed

The Hindu

Dec 31, 2017

Fire dept., BMC probe fire cause, poli cos make rounds of site

The Times of India City

Dec 31, 2017

Kamala Mills fire brings BMC policy under lens

The Times of India City

Dec 31, 2017

Restaurants can't use terrace: NDMC

The Times of India City

Dec 31, 2017

Mumbai inferno prompts safety inspec ons at Delhi markets

Dec 31, 2017

Day a er, demoli on drive rolls Lookout no ces against pub owners, safety glare on eateries across Mumbai

The Times of India City

The Telegraph

17

NAME OF THE NEWSPAPER

DATE

REPORTS AS PER MENTIONED SUBJECT

Absolute outrage coming upon the authori es from common people

India Today

Dec 30, 2017

Mumbai fire: Complaint filed against civic, excise officials, cops seeking ac on

The Times of India City

Dec 31, 2017

'Roo op circular sought to legalize eatery viola ons'

Dec 30, 2017

Kamala Mills fire: Facing public outrage, municipal officials go on a demoli on spree in Mumbai

Dec 29, 2017

OPINION | Kamala Mills' Fire Reminds Me of Bengaluru Carlton Horror Which Claimed My Son

Scroll.in

News 18

Corrup on in government ge ng exposed in front of the whole world

The Times of India City

Dec 30, 2017

Only 400 of 5,000 Delhi eateries have got fire safety permit

The Indian Express

Dec 31, 2017

Kamala Mills fire: Another fire in Mumbai, 10 days, 23 km, a li le apart

The Times of India City

Dec 31, 2017

Fire NOC to 1Above five days before blaze gets 5 suspended

The Free Press Journal

Jan 1, 2018

Mumbai: What 2018 holds for BMC and its babus

18

FIRE TRAGEDIES AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

MAJOR FIRE TRAGEDIES IN INDIA – A CHRONOLOGICAL VIEW The UHRF has identefied some major fire tragedies in India between 1995 to 2017 as under :

19

20

20

21

22

As while persuing our extensive research on fire safety issues in India, we have encountered with the news of unsafe condi on of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Parliament, the symbol of democracy, which shocked us and made us realize that the current on going situa on and no regula on on fire safety arrangement in the na on. The news ar cles like “CIC ques ons fire-safety of SC and Parliament Buildings ” published in “LIVE LAW” on November 27, 2014 or the informa on published in the “Times of India” on November 27, 2014 sta ng “No fire safety cer ficates for Parliament, SC in 10 years ” made us extremely concern over the safety and security of all officials, workers etc. working in these monumental buildings.

The UHRF has very humbly submi ed the representa on on the above men oned issue detailing the fire safety concern of these monumental building men oning the grave concern in the le er to the Hon’ble speaker of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha , the Chief Jus ce of Supreme Court . Similarly the alarming condi on of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and parliament house regarding the fire safety issue has been conveyed to His excellency the Hon’ble president of India and the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India vide dated September 22, 2017

23

24

To validate the originality of the above men oned news ar cles, UHRF has sought to Central Informa on Commission (CIC) the document related to it. In response, The CIC had provided 3 documents detailing and suppor ng the validity of the news report. It was shown that, One appellant named Shri Rohit Sabharwal filed RTI applica on dated 29.08.2013 for the cer fied copies of latest fire safety cer ficate of these two important buildings. The informa on acquired from the Central Informa on Commission (CIC), “astonishing aspects such as no informa on was available whether any ac on was for over decade about compliance of fire safety norms which were quite essen al” was revealed. It was also observed that last survey of fire safety arrangement conducted by Delhi Fire Service on 13.09.2004. The Central Informa on commission further directs “the responded public authori es especially the head of the department, to take a serious note of fire safety lapses in the buildings, housing Supreme Court and Parliament and direct to appraise the authori es in legislature and judiciary about necessity and importance of taking the measures recommended by them.” Though all the above men oned fire tragedies will be remembered as painful memories of the na on but the fire tragedy which happen at Mantralaya, Mumbai on June 21, 2012 and at Uphaar cinema Delhi on June 13, 1997 leading to huge loss of lives will always stay as the symbol of sorrow at such a high level buildings. The incidents indicates the utmost emergency of taking fire protec on management on priority. The very recent fire accident at the Prime Minister’s Office on October 17, 2017 established the alarming situa on and our grave concern over the fire safety arrangement & the condi on in India. The detailed report stated in “ The Indian Express” on October 17, 2017 as “Fire breaks out at PMO early this morning, no injuries” is one of many newspapers where the report was published. As the father of our Na on explained “Be the change that you wish to see in the world”, It is the urgent need of the hour for the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Parliament House to follow the footstsep of that wise thought and take the ma er as the most serious issue to save million of lives of the country for now and many years to come.

25

Major Fire Tragedies in all around the World – A Chronological View

A number of major fire incidents that took place in the world have resulted in worst situa on leaving a dras c & painful impact over the people. The UHRF has iden fied some very recent major fire tragedies in the world as under :

26

27

28

It is high me that we should emphasize and give importance to the proverb as it goes “PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE”. Though mul ple ac ons are taken by the government a er the loss of lives and upon complete lash out of public in India but with it neither any of those innocent lost souls are going to come back nor the grave, sadness of all the family members and their unstoppable tears be stopped or removed.

LIKE KAMALA MILLS FIRE TRAGEDY THERE ARE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF BUILDING & FIRE SAFETY NORMS HAPPENING IN ANOTHER MUMBAI PROJECT NAMED “PALAIS ROYALE”. THE PROJECT IS HUB OF ILLEGALITIES AND IRREGULARITIES IN THE HISTORY OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LEADING TO RISKING THE LIVES OF ALL INNOCENT FLAT BUYERS.

29

CASE STUDY: “PALAIS ROYALE” PALAIS ROYALE, MUMBAI: There are many cases where fire safety norms are not complied with which may result in disaster for the occupants. One such example is that of a High Rise Residen al Building, Palais Royale in Worli Mumbai where fire safety norms are blatantly flouted by developers for commercial gains. Palais Royale is a skyscraper being built at Worli Naka, Lower Parel, Mumbai. The project is on the land of Shree Ram Mills Limited ( now re-named as Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. ), the Developers is developing the Palais Royale building and a public parking scheme of the development control regula on, 1991.

General Informa on: Status: Under Construc on Type: Residen al Loca on: Worli Naka, Lower Parel, Mumbai, India Construc on started: 2008 Es mated comple on: 2018/2021 Cost: INR 3,000 Cr. Height : 395 meters (1,296 .)

Technical Details Proposed floor count: 72 (construc on of 56 Floors completed) Floor area: 310,000 m² (3.3 × 10⁶ sq. .) Li s/Elevators: 12

Design and construc on Architect: Tala Panthaky & Associates Developer: Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited Main Contractor: Raghuveer Urban Construc ons

30

BACKGROUND OF THE DEVELOPER SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCUTRE LIMITED [SRUIL]

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Company Informa on Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (SRUIL) entered the Real Estate business by launching the flagship project of “Palais Royale”, prior to that the Company was one of the big players in tex les known as Shree Ram Mills Limited. The Company had carried out the business of manufacturing of co on tex les and synthe c fabrics. The name of the Company was changed from Shree Ram Mills Limited to “Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited” in the year 2007 and is carrying the ac vi es of tex les trading and construc on.

MANAGEMENT Name

Designa on

Mr. S. S. Kasliwal

Chairman

Mr. Vikas S. Kasliwal

Vice-Chairman & CEO

Mr. Lalit Mohan

Director

Mr. S.P.Banerjee

Director

Mrs. Dhvani Kaul

Director

Mr. S. K. Luharuka

Whole-Time Director

Mr. N. K. Sethi

Director

Mr. N.K. Modani

Sr. President (Finance) & CFO

Mr. R.N. Jha

Director

Mr. Sa sh Kumar Prajapa

CS & Compliance Officer

31

AUDIT COMMITTEE COMPOSITION Name

Designa on

Mr. Lalit Mohan

Chairman

Mr. S. P. Banerjee

Member

Mr. S. K. Luharuka

Member

NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE COMPOSITION Name

Designa on

Mr. N.K.Sethi

Chairman

Mr. S. P. Banerjee

Member

Mr. Lalit Mohan

Member

NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE COMPOSITION Name

Designa on

Mr. Lalit Mohan

Chairman

Mr. S.K.Luharuka

Member

Mr. N.K.Sethi

Member

PROJECTS Our upcoming residen al project on iconic green building “Palais Royale” is located at Worli. “Palais Royale” is a LEED pla num pre-cer fied building and has also recently received a 5 Palm ra ng from CETEC in Australia. SRUIL is taking significant efforts to ensure that we do our bit in crea ng "green" sustainable structures, and we are confident that in mes to come, our thrust on the eco-friendly sector will pay rich dividends in terms of premium pricing and increased market demand. With the comple on of Palais Royale, SRUIL is expected to be amongst the top players in the Real Estate & Construc on industry.

32

M/s SRUIL is the owner of land admeasuring 67,785.50 sq. meters equivalent to 81,041.33 sq. yds. situated at Shree Ram Mills Premises, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013, Some me in the year 1987, the said Shree Ram Mills Ltd / SRUIL became a Sick Industrial Company and filed a Reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruc on, (hereina er referred to as “BIFR”) and applied for reliefs as prayed for therein. Scheme Sanc oned by BIFR: In terms of the scheme sanc oned by the BIFR on 31.10.1991, SRUIL was permi ed to sell the surplus Floor Space Index (“FSI”) in the Mill Compound to the extent of 1,20,000 Sq. . The es mated price which the said FSI was pegged at around Rs. 21 crores before BIFR, as well as represented to the AAIFR, secured and unsecured creditors debenture holders, etc. Asset Sale Commi ee: The AAIFR cons tuted an Asset Sale Commi ee consis ng ofi)

IDBI – As Opera ng Agency;

ii)

AAIFR;

iii)

Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra;

iv)

Secretary Tex le, Government of Maharashtra;

v)

Two Promoter Directors of Shree Ram Mills Ltd;

vi)

Municipal Corpora on of Greater Bombay, represented through State of Maharashtra;

vii)

Labour Union of Shree Ram Mills Ltd and

viiI)

an Independent Nominee

33

for the sale of 1,20,000 sq. . FSI to the prospec ve buyers. The BMC was represented through Govt. of Maharashtra. The said Assets Sale Commi ee approved the sale of 1,20,000 sq. . FSI to the Applicant / UPPL for a total considera on of Rs. 21.60 cr.

34

Ÿ

The said sale of 1,20,000 sq. FSI for the Residen al Project of was sanc oned by the AAIFR vide its order dated 11.10.1994. In the said order it was men oned that “as per revised DC Rules, company has a surplus FSI of 1.20 lakhs sq. . at Worli Bombay, the present value of which, would be approx Rs. 21 crores.”

Ÿ

Agreements dated 27.04.1994, 18.07.1994 and 09.11.1994 executed between the U lity Premises Pvt. Ltd. (UPPL), M/s. Cogent Ventures India Ltd. (CVIL) and the SRUIL for purchase of 1.20 Lacs Sq. Ft. of FSI on the land situated at Shree Ram Mills, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 on an area admeasuring 4848.1 sq mtrs. (i.e part of the said land) against of which the Applicant made a payment of Rs. 25.64 crores whereas the total considera on amount as agreed to be paid was Rs. 21.60 crores. However, an excess amount of Rs.4.04 crores was paid in this regard.

Ÿ

The said payments were made directly to the Secured creditors of SRUIL i.e. Banks, Financial Ins tu ons and also to the MCGM. UPPL and CVIL were induced and forced by SRUIL to pay the said excess sum causing wrongful loss to the Applicant /UPPL and CVIL.

Ÿ

Since there was some difficulty in ge ng sanc on of 1,20,000 sq. FSI on the plot

of land allocated for joint development under the agreement dated 27.04.1994, another agreement was entered into by and between SRUIL and UPPL on 18.07.1994 whereby SRUIL agreed to allot in favour of UPPL the adjacent piece of land admeasuring 2,500 sq. mts in order to enable UPPL to have the en re FSI of 1,20,000 sq. . SRUIL represented that although the said por on of land was reserved by the MCGM for the purposes of a Municipal School and a Children's Playground but the said land could be made available by shi ing the reserva on to an alterna ve site within the mills compound and therea er the said premises could be used for the purposes of construc on of residen al complex. Ÿ

Le er of Bank of India dated 08.08.1996 addressed to Bank of Baroda wherein it was men oned that permission of only 86000 sq. . area was granted on the plot e a r m a r ke d fo r d e v e l o p m e n t . I t i s men oned in the le er of Bank of India dated 08.08.1996 that “in terms of supplementary agreement dated 18th July 1994 between SRM & U lity, SRM allo ed a larger property in order to enable U lity to develop FSI utpo 1.20 lac sq . since BMC had granted FSI only uto 86,000 sq . on the property covered by the earlier agreement dated 27.04.1994 due to reserva ons on the plot for school, playground etc”. The copy of the said le er is enclosed herewith as Annexure-2.

Further, in para (d) of the said le er dated 08.08.1996, it has been men oned that “upon BCFL extending financial assistance to SRM in the sum of Rs. 21.6 crores, SRM has agreed to assign all their right, tle and interest to

35

receive, recover and appropriate the propor onate sales proceeds receivable by SRM under the said agreement of 27.04.1994 and 18.07.1994 upto the sum of Rs. 21.6 cr as reimbursement of the investment proposed to be made by BCFL in SRM”. Ÿ

Confirma on of UPPL's Transac on by various affidavits: It is submi ed that officials of SRUIL and IDBI had confirmed the fact of sale of 1.20 lacs sq. . FSI by SRUIL to UPPL before various courts. The same are:-

(I)

Affidavit of Mr. Abhay Kasliwal, Chairman of SRUIL: Mr. Abhay Kasliwal, Chairman of SRUIL has given an affidavit before the AAIFR on 24.09.1996 men oning that “I say that the company entered into Joint Development Agreement with M/s. U lity Premises Pvt. Ltd. on 27.04.1994 for the development of the said surplus FSI and sale realisa on agreement with M/s. Bhupendra Capital Finance Ltd. On 09.11.1994 whereby the company agreed to assign its rights to receive money under the said Joint Development Agreement in return for a full considera on of Rs. 21.60 crores.”

(ii)

Affidavit of Sh. Subhkaran K. Luharauka, Director of SRUIL: The President/Director of SRUIL Sh. Subhkaran K. Luharauka , had confirmed by way of an affidavit dated 05.07.1995 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its SLP (Civil) No. 14076 of 1995, that

36

SRUIL had sold & received the full considera on for the same. (iii)

Affidavit of IDBI Bank by its Deputy Manager, Mr. K.H. Vishwanathan: The IDBI vide an affidavit dated 23.11.1995 in writ pe on before Bombay High Court wherein it is men oned that - “Disposal of land to the order of 1.2 lac sq. of surplus floor, space index (FSI) of the Mill of respondent no. 1”. Further it was also men oned in point no. 9 that “the commi ee, a er taking into considera on the loca on of the land, the rates at which proper es were sold in the surrounding area and the terms of payment, approved sale of 1.2 sq. . FSI by Respondent No. 1 to U lity Premises Private Limited for a considera on of Rs. 21.60 crores”.

Later on UPPL and CVIL Infra Ltd entered into a Joint Venture Agreement on 28.06.1996 with M/s. Ansals Housing & Construc on Ltd. for the development of the land admeasuring 4848.1 sq. mtrs. Pursuant to the said joint venture, an FSI of 86,725 sq. . was to be developed on the plot against the total FSI of 1.20 lacs sq. . However, UPPL and M/s Ansals Housing & Construc on Ltd. could develop only an FSI of 82,015 sq. which resulted in short fall of 4,710 sq. . of FSI. However, there was a total short fall of 37,985 sq. . of FSI out of total FSI of 1,20,000 sq. . which the Applicant /UPPL and CVIL Infra were /are en tled. Due to the shor all in FSI of 4,710, the Applicant / UPPL has to compensate M/s Ansals Housing for the same.

37

OTHERS TRANSACTIONS OF UPPL WITH SRUIL IN RESPECT OF BHIWANDIWALA BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL AREA Besides the abovemen oned transac ons SRUIL also entered into and executed more agreements with respect to the development of its other lands of the owner / SRUIL which also situate within the mills complex. The SRUIL had some liabili es towards its labourers also as they were to i m m e d i ate l y p ay R s . 7 C ro re s o r thereabouts to se le them. The UPPL in order to se le the said labourers, on behalf of SRUIL, made the above payments of Rs.4.01 crores to M/s S.Kumars Finance & Investment Ltd. (now renamed as M/s. Landmarc Leisure Corpora on Ltd.) and Rs.2.61 crores to M/s S.Kumars Tyre Manufacturing Co. Ltd. These agreements dated 18.08.1994 and 23.12.1993 were executed by the Applicant Santosh Kumar Bagla in his individual capacity. Thus an amount of Rs. 6.62 crores in total was also paid by Applicant and his associate to the above said associate companies of SRUIL to se le the claims and dues of the labours which was also part of the revival scheme of SRUIL. (I)

BHIWANDIWALA BUILDING

Agreement Dated 18.08.1994 and other various agreement/ documents: Executed between the promoters of the UPPL, CVIL and the SRUIL for the development of 3580.44 Sq. Mts. which comes to approximately 65,493 Sq. Fts of FSI on the land known as Bhiwandiwala Building, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 against which the UPPL & CVIL together made a payment of Rs. 4.01 Crores to SRUIL in 1994. (ii)

COMMERCIAL AREA

Agreement Dated 23.12.1993 and other various documents: Executed between UPPL, CVIL and the SRUIL for the development of 1.63 Lacs Sq.. Ft. of land situated known as Commercial Area situated at Shri Ram Mills Compound, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 against which the Applicant / UPPL & CVIL made a payment of Rs. 2.61 Crores to SRUIL as part considera on amount.

38

APPOINTMENT OF M/S. BHUPENDRA ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS (BEC) AS PROJECT MANAGER Ÿ

In furtherance of the aforesaid Agreements dated 27.04.1994 and 18.07.1994, the SRUIL appointed one M/s. Bhupendra Engineering & Construc ons as 'PROJECT MANAGER' for the smooth development of the lands and projects of SRUIL as per agreements with the Applicant / UPPL.

Ÿ

The said appointment of BEC was duly approved and confirmed by the SRUIL vide its Board resolu on dated 31.10.1994 duly passed by the Board of Directors of SRUIL.

Ÿ

Subsequently, another Agreement dated 02.11.1994 between the par es was executed and accordingly, the physical possession for use and occupa on of the property/ land of the owner SRUIL was handed over by SRUIL to BEC. Further, considering the apprehension of BEC, SRUIL in order to secure the Project Manager's interests, created a lien on the said Property in favour of them ll the FSI of 1,20,000 sq. . as envisaged is not achieved.

39

40

Applicability of National Building Code The regulation 43 of DCR, 1991 deals with the Fire Protection requirements. As far as the applicability of the National Building Code of India is concerned, clause 1 of Regulation 43 of DCR, 1991 is material which may read as under43(1) General:- The planning design and construction of any building shall be such as to ensure safety from fire. For this purpose, unless otherwise specified in these Regulations, the provisions of Part IV: Fire Protection Chapter, National Building Code, shall apply. For multistoried, high rise and special buildings, additional provisions relating to fire protection contained in Appendix VIII shall also apply, Appendix VIII [Regulation 43 of DCR, 1991]- Additional Fire protection Requirements for multi-storeyed High Rise and special Building . General- (1) In addition to the provisions of Part IV fire Protection National Building code of India, the Chief Fire Officer may insist on suitable provisions in multistoreyed, high rise and special buildings or premises from the fire safety and fire - fighting point of view depending on their occupancy and height.

Maharashtra Fire Prevention & Life Safety Measure Act 2006 As per the Maharashtra Fire Prevention & Life Safety Measure Act 2006 Chapter 1(5)- The expression “fire prevention and life safety measures” means such measures as are necessary in accordance with the building bye-laws or as required by or under the provisions of any law or the National Building Code of India, 2005, for the time being in force, for the prevention, control and fighting of fire and for ensuring the safety of life and property in the case of fire.

41

As per National Building Code 2005 part 4 Fire & Life Safety 4.12.3 For building more than 24 m. in height, refuge area of 15 sq. mts. or an area equivalent to 0.3 sq. mtrs. per person to accommodate the occupants of two consecutive floors, whichever is higher, shall be provided as under. The refuge area shall be provided on the periphery of the floor or preferably on a cantilever projection and open to air at least on one side protected with suitable railings. a) For floor above, 24m and upto 39 m- one refuge area on the floor immediately above 24 m. b) For floor above 39 m- one refuge area on the floor immediately above 39m and so on after every 15 m. refuge area provided in excess of the requirement shall be counted towards FAR. Note: residential flats in multi-storied building with balcony, need not be provided with refuge area, however flats without balcony shall provide refuge are as given above. The National Building code specifies manner and minimum extent of refuge area requirement in the high rise building based on various factors such as occupant load, travel distance etc. The said factor shall be considered while designing a new building.

Requirements of individual exits at each floor The regulation 44 of DCR, 1991 deals with the requirement of making a provision of refuge area. Clause 7 is material for consideration which read thus: Clause (7)-Refuge area: (a)

(i) The refuge area shall be provided within building line at floor level. (ii) In case of multistoreyed & high rise buildings having height more than 30 mts., first refuge area shall be provided at 24 mt. or 1st habitable floor, whichever is higher. Thereafter, the refuge area shall be provided at every 7th habitable floor. The refuge area shall be 4% of the habitable floor area it serves, and will be free of FSI. If it exceeds 4%, the excess area shall be counted in FSI.

(B)

Notwithstanding clause (a) for buildings having height upto 70 mts, as an alternate, Refuge areas can be provided as R.C.C. cantilever projections at the alternate midlanding level of staircase , free of FSI. Each refuge area at mid-landing shall have a minimum width of 3.0 mts and minimum area of 10.0 sq.mts for residential and 15 sq.mts for non-residential buildings.

©

In case of multistoreyed & high rise buildings upto 30 mts. height, the terrace floor of the building shall be treated as the refuge area.

42

MISUSE OF REFUGE AREA IN THE PALAIS ROYALE PROJECT With regards to the unauthorized constructions & misuse of Refuge Area in the project Palais Royale, the main issues, challenges & submissions in the Public Interest Litigation No. 43 of 2012, filled by Janhit Manch and Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. can broadly be categorized under following heads: Public Parking Lot (PPL) and Stop Work notices; Main residential building and the commencement certificates; Refuge Area and Fire Fighting arrangements ; Compensation for setback area; Height of habitable floors; Passages at manor level; Service floors; Amenity floors; FSI of Duplex floors; Other issues like servant toilets, structural columns, toilets at duplex level, flower beds etc.

MAJOR ISSUES IN THE SAID PIL There were mainly 6 issues raised in the said PIL which were discussed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and an order was accordingly passed on 13.05.2013. The summary of the issues addressed by the Hon'ble High Court have been: I. Public Parking Lot; ii. FSI granted in respect of Refuge Area; iii. Entitlement of SRUIL to claim FSI in lieu of setback area; iv. Passages at Manor level and entrance and swimming pool, area over deck, and Refuge Area at the entrance level; v. F.S.I. in respect of structural columns; and vi. N.O.C. from high rise committee.

43

RESEARCH ON PALAIS ROYALE PROJECT CONDUCTED BY UHRF The UHRF have been doing research for ensuring strict financial discipline in the public and corporate sectors and while doing so, we came to know about various irregularities & illegalities of some of the real estate development and construction companies whereby they often twist and grossly violates the rules by unlawful planning and construction of additional / unauthorized area that are beyond their entitlement. The UHRF, an NGO with its limited resources and man power has conducted a thorough research able to collect data and analyzed the same on the illegalities/ unauthorized construction in Mumbai by various Developers/ Builders. The real estate projects of some of the corporate builders a re p ro m o t i n g a n d e n co u ra g i n g u n a u t h o r i ze d development with violations to areas free of FSI such as Refuge Areas, Flower Beds, Voids, Ducts, Lobbies, Gardens, Swimming Pools etc. thereby causing danger to the lives of thousands of poor and common citizen across the country having habitation in these buildings / projects. The UHRF's research work has been on the various real estate projects of the corporate houses and one of them is 'Palais Royale' of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. (SRUIL). Most of the projects constructed by the Developers / Corporate Houses at Mumbai are in complete violation of Development Control Regulations, National Building Code and BMC/MCGM bye-laws and are being built unauthorized & illegally. Though the UHRF presents the ultimate violations in building construction activities by presenting the Palais Royale project case in detail, however there exists multiple number of violations by various developers in their respective projects. The UHRF has collected from various trusted and dependable sources, drawings showing Refuge Areas and its violations by these developers. THE ILLEGALITIES & UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION IN “PALAIS ROYALE” There are several mammoth illegalities & irregularities in the said Project Palais Royale of the developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. The UHRF had done a rigorous research and received the above tabulated data from various sources. This under construction 56 storied skyscraper (residential tower) at Worli Naka, Mumbai, is a classic example of misuse of Refuge Area.

44

The project Palais Royale as stated above, is a classic example of violations and misuse of Refuge Areas. The FSI granted in respect of Refuge Area is vastly excessive The Municipal Commissioner has allowed Refuge Areas surrounding each flat on each floor of the Palais Royale building with a view of favoring the developer and has in turn cast the safety of the occupants to the wind. This is a safety hazard and is contrary to the fundamental concept of a Refuge Area which should never has access from any flat or apartment and should be a segregated area easily accessible only by a common passage or staircase and where occupants can easily assemble to be rescued in cases of emergency. In the case of Palais Royale, as the Refuge Areas are outside each flat, in the event of a fire or calamity, this will prove to be death traps if occupants have to be rescued from each flat. This will lead to a disaster and loss of several lives. In fact the developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited has blatantly disregarded the safety norms, which is clear from the fact that it has sold these Refuge Areas and passages to the flat purchasers in the form of decks/terraces. This not only amounts to FSI violation but also amounts to a criminal action of fraud and playing with the lives of citizens. The total built up area from 13th to 15th floor (without considering lower levels including amenities services) is 142038.82 sq. mts. As per the BMC / MCGM total Refuge Area is 22617.64 sq. mts. According to MCGM, the percentage of Refuge Area to total built up area (excluding lower levels), works out to about 15%. The Refuge Areas of the entrance of the flats are accessible and merge able in the flats and are likely to be misused by 6355.58 sq. mts. It was also stated that Refuge Area which further be available in Palais Royale as free of FSI is 16262.06 sq. mts.

45

PUBLIC CAR PARKING BUILDING (ADDITIONAL FSI) AS PER D.C.R 33(24): The Developer has proposed Public Parking Lot (PPL) in the above referred plot and claimed additional FSI as per short term amendments by Govt. of Maharashtra U/No. CHE/387/MC/Rds. & Traffic Dt. 06.08.2010 and the High-Power Committee have approved the proposal for accommodating 900 parking spaces. The Developer has proposed 3 basements + stilt + 1 to 15 floors for the PPL. The Developer has taken entire FSI benefit in the proposed building and amended the plans upto 58 floors. Later on Government of Maharashtra has withdrawn the modifications on 18.05.2011. THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC PARKING LOT (PPL) 1. The size of the PPL to be accepted by MCGM and the consequent FSI benefits to be conferred upon the developer has to be gone into in detail. In this case, the developer SRUIL has carried out construction up to 15 floors for PPL on the basic of deemed CC and requested MCGM to take over the said PPL. The city civil court by Order 16-05-2013 has decreed the suit and held that the notice under section 354A of MMC Act is invalid, illegal and not enforceable, thereby the MCGM is perpetually restrained from enforcing the said notice dated 14.12.2011. The said decree of the Court merely accords protection to SRUIL against the said notice under section 354(A) of MMC Act. The decree cannot be stretched to imply that MCGM is obliged to accept the 15 floors of PPL and confer FSI benefits connected with such PPL construction. 2. The Hon'ble High Court has observed that “The public parking Lot cannot be held illegal as contended by the petitioner and the Respondent, i.e., Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. cannot be deprived from claiming incentive FSI accrued there from for the Residential Building, if otherwise available in law.'' Since the PPL policy as contained in MCGM Circular dated 22.06.2011 has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court , MCGM can accept PPL comprising of 3 basements + ground floor + 4 upper floors and incentive FSI against the same can be made available to SRUIL on payment of premium and after handing over of PPL to MCGM. 3. In view of the above, the 5th to 15th floors of the PPL building are not in consonance with the MCGM Circular dated 22.06.2011 and the directives dated 19th March, 2012 issued by State Govt. u/s 37 (1) of MRTP Act, 1966. Hence, MCGM cannot take over 5th to 15th floors of PPL building and no incentive FSI is therefore admissible for the same.

46

The Issue of Passages at Manor Level, Swimming Pool, Area Over Deck and Refuge Area at the entrance level and Findings of the Architect I.

Under regulation 35 (2)(c), the common passages are allowed free of FSI, however they should be common passages accessible to all. In the present case, the refuge area at the entrance of the flat, passages connecting to the flats, passage at Manor levels, swimming pool at Duplex level and covered area over the deck are not common areas accessible to all the therefore will have to be counted in FSI.

ii. As per MCGM circular dated 27.02.2007, swimming pool for individual purpose will not be allowed. If the amenity has a common access and if it is covered at the height of at least 2 floors, the same will be allowed free of FSI. The space for filtration plant and chlorination plant etc. are functional requirements of the main activity of the swimming pool. Therefore, these installations will be free of FSI. iii. In the present case, swimming pools were allowed flats free of FSI Under the discretionary powers by the then Municipal Commissioner. As per the MCGM policy detailed in Circular dated 27.02.2007, swimming pool having height less than 9.00 meters will also be counted in FSI. The deck area also be counted in FSI. In view of the above facts, the passages at manor level and entrance , swimming pool area, deck area and refuge area at the entrance level which were earlier granted free of FSI, need to be counted in FSI.

OTHER ISSUES : The Public Parking Lot is initially sanctioned on the recommendations of a committee constituted under Regulation 33 (24) under the Chairmanship of the Municipal Commissioner, by following due process of law. Initially on approval of the State Government dated 18.06.2010. Letter of Intent was granted on 06.08.2010 and the plans of the 3 Basement + Ground + 15 upper floors of the Public Parking Tower were sanctioned and IOD was issued of the same on 20.08.2010. The Commencement Certificate (hereinafter referred to as CC) up to plinth was also issued on 01.10.2010.

47

Thereafter by letter dated 04.03.2011, the State Government informed the Municipal Commissioner to restrict the construction of the PPL allowed under Regulation 33 (24) of Development Control Regulation – 1991 (hereinafter referred to as DCR), upto four floors. Thereafter, the Municipal Commissioner under the powers vested under Regulation 33(24) (iv), issued notice under Section 51 of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as MRTP Act) to all the developers whose PPL proposals were approved. The CC in respect of the PPL of SRUIL is granted upto plinth only. Thus Notice u/s 51 of MRTP Act was issued to SRUIL on 29.11.2011. However, on the basis of deemed CC, the SRUIL proceeded with the construction of PPL as per plans. MCGM therefore issued stop work notice under section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as MMC Act) to SRUIL on 14.12.2011 and notice under section 53(1) of MRTP Act was also issued 19.12.2011. The said notice u/s 53(1) of MRTP work notice issued u/sec 354A of MMC Act was challenged before the Hon'ble City Civil Court in Suit No. 2942 of 2011. The City Civil Court by interim Order dt. 24.12.2011 has permitted SRUIL to carry on the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plans. Thereafter, the said suit and perpetually restrained MCGM from enforcing its notice under section 354A of MMC Act. The plan for the main residential building were approved upto 56 upper floors. However, the CC was granted only upto 43rd floor. In view of the interim orders of Hon'ble City Civil Court in relation to PPL, SRUIL constructed 15 floors in respected of PPL. Even though the CC for the residential building, namely Palais Royale was granted upto 43 floors only, SRUIL continued construction up 56 floors i.e., beyond CC. It needs to be mentioned here that the CC beyond 43 floor could have been given only upon satisfactory completion and handing over of PPL to MCGM and otherwise.

48

THE SPEAKING ORDER DATED 12.09.2013 OF THE EX COMMISSIONER, MCGM The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, considered the issues mentioned in said order dated 13.05.2013 and passed the following: 1) As Regards the Public Parking Lot (PPL), it shall be as per the MCGM Circular dated 22.06.2011 and as per state Govt. directives dated 19.03.2012 issued under section 37(1) of MRTP act, which is in accordance with the law. Hence MCGM will accept PPL comprising of 3 basements + ground + 4 upper floors, which only will be eligible for grant of incentive FSI toward construction of PPL requisite premium as per policy. 2) Refuge Areas shall be provided free of FSI only to the extent of 4% of the built-up area it serves. Refuge areas in excess of the aforesaid requirements shall be counted in FSI accordance with clause 4.12.3 of National Building Code. 3) There is no provision in the DCR for exclusion of the structural columns from FSI computations. Hence, the structural columns need to be counted in FSI. 4) As regard the setback area and measuring 705.45 sq.mt, FSI Advantage in lieu of handing over the cannot be granted at this stage, in absence of conclusive documentary evidence. 5) The Passage at manor level and the entrance, swimming pool, area over deck and refuge area at the entrance level, which were earlier permitted free of FSI shall be counted in FSI in accordance with law. 6) The request of SRUIL to pay the security deposit under DCR 5(3)(xi) and to levy the premium as per section 22(m) of MRTP Act, 1966 is rejected. 7) Since there are many interlinked revised FSI computations as aforesaid, the project proponent (SRUIL) is directed to submit modified plans in accordance with the regulations.

49

On the basis of UHRF's comprehensive research and analysis on Palais Royale case with all related documents received from various sources which prove the illegal constructions at Palais Royale, the UHRF herein briefly describe all the unauthorized and illegal construction carried out by the developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. and its associates and request to take strict action against all the violators. As part of its research and data collection, the UHRF subsequently filed several RTI applications and able to receive / get from BMC / MCGM voluminous files, documents being 9 files of EB/987/GS/A (1436 pages) and 4 files of EB/2572/GS/AL (1705 pages) pertaining to the project 'Palais Royale'. The UHRF accordingly appointed an independent architect namely M/s. Dimensions Architect of Mumbai to get an opinion on the same and after thorough examination of the said documents submitted by the architect firm who gave their report dated 11.02.2015 highlighting several additional illegalities and irregularities in the project. There are several mammoth illegalities & irregularities in the Project 'Palais Royale' of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd and the point wise description thereof is as under: i)

The MCGM has sanctioned the plans beyond the provisions of the Development Control Regulations under the garb of the discretionary powers available under Regulation 64(b) of DCR 1991. The powers vested with the concerned officials of the BMC/ MCGM were misused and utilized arbitrarily to grant largesse to the Developer. The Regulation bars MCGM from using the discretion for purposes of FSI. However, to the Complainant's dismay and disbelief, MCGM has granted concessions which amounts to casting the statute to the winds.

ii) The developer company has flouted conditions of LOI with complete immunity wherein, the PPL was mandated to be handed over to MCGM on ownership basis and it is only then, the incentive FSI was available to be utilized on the Main residential building being constructed. However, though said mandatory requirements have not been complied with by the developer SRUIL, yet, they have utilized the incentive FSI for main residential building in connivance with the concerned officials of BMC / MCGM. iii) Without the incentive FSI being accrued, the 13 floors of the Main Residential building from 44th to 56th floors, have been constructed without any commencement certificate and FSI. This illegality speaks in volume of taking the Statute for granted. Surprisingly, till date, the municipal corporation (MCGM) is shying away from its responsibility of taking action under the provisions of the MMC Act as well as under the MR & TP Act for the illegal construction of 13 floors beyond sanctioned 43 floors. It is learnt that there is no restraining orders from any courts preventing MCGM from taking stringent action against the project and the accused.

50

iv) It is regretted to say that the MCGM in their generosity has also granted refuge areas, fire escape passages, huge passages, decks, huge flower beds, etc. free of FSI to the developer who has brazenly merged these areas in the respective flats and sold them to the flat buyers at astronomical prices. v) The developer company and its concerned Directors / Officers in active connivance with the MCGM, have taken advantage of the FSI of the area under road widening whilst the compensation for this area was paid to the company in the year 1976 as per the MCGM/ULC records. There is absolutely an FSI fraud and in the process, records and documentary evidence have been manipulated, fabricated and doctored and the same have been used for the purpose of committing this FSI fraud.

VIOLATION IN “PALAIS ROYALE”

According to the shown plan, apparently the Refuge Area & Flower Bed Area are merged with Flat Area by violating Fire Safety Norms.

Typical floor plan of Palais Royale

51

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

52

DETAILS OF LITIGATION IN RESPECT OF PROJECT PALAIS ROYALE & THE DEVELOPER/SRUIL S r . CASE TITLE No.

REMARK COURTS S

1.

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Others SLP(C) No. 010704 - 010705 / 2016

Pending

SC

2.

Janhit Manch. Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Others S.L.P.(C)...Cc No. 013527 - 013528 / 2016

Pending

SC

3.

Janhit Manch. Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Others T.C.(C) No. 000271 - / 2017

Pending

SC

4.

Janhit Manch. Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Others MA 001679 - / 2017 IN T.C.(C) No. 567/2017

Pending

SC

53

5.

United Human Rights Federa uon And Anr Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. (SRUIL) W.P. CRL. No. 3143/2015

Pending

Mumbai High Court

6.

U lity Premises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. CARAP/185/2017

Pending

Mumbai High Court

7.

Janhit Manch And Anr. Versus Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. PIL/50/2017

Pending

Mumbai High Court

8.

M/S. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Kalpataru Proper es Pvt. Ltd & Ors. NMCD/136/2016

Pending

Mumbai High Court

9.

Ac on Barter Private Limited Versus Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited CARBP/70/2016

Pending

Mumbai High Court

10.

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd And Anr Pending Versus The Sate Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors And Janhit Manch And Anr (Applicnats) CHSW/329/2015

Mumbai High Court

11.

A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Pending A. Navinchandra Steels Ltd.) Versus Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. CP/1039/2015

Mumbai High Court

12.

Ac on Barter Private Limited Versus Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited C.P. No. 1066/2015

Pending

Mumbai High Court

13.

Janhit Manch And Anr. Versus Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. And Anr. CAW/2367/2013

Pending

Mumbai High Court

54

WORNG INFORMATION UPLOADED AT REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016 (RERA), 1. As per the provisions under newly enacted Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), and rules under Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the details which required to be made available by the SRUIL on MahaRera site as updated is incomplete and misleading as SRUIL failed to provide any information with regard to its litigations for the sake of various investors of Palais Royale. 2. This amounts to concealment and mis-representation by SRUIL of its ongoing real estate development project(s) at Mumbai. As per the property cards submitted by the owners / petitioner, the ownership of the land has been shown as follows: C.S. Nos.

Area

Tenure

Ownership

310,309 & 1/1539

3376.28

Municipal Land

Shree Ram Mills Ltd

1547

4339.49

Leased by C.I.T.

Leased

1548

1413.88

---do---

1549

347.83

---do---

1550

1396.32

---do---

288

716.56

Municipality

Municipality

289

51865.51

L.T.A.

Shree Ram Mills

1/1540, 2/1540, 3/1540

5081.14

Nil

Shree Ram Mills

Shree Ram Mills

3. It is clear that C.S. No. 1547, 1548 & 1550 are leased to SRUIL and other plots are owned by them. How can amalgamation or joint development be allowed under Development Control Regulation, 1991 by SRUIL? The freehold land of the owners / SRUIL and the leasehold lands of the Municipality / MCGM were amalgamated and subdivided without the sanction / permission of the MCGM who is the Lessor of land. Also, no sanction of the Improvements Committee and Corporation has been obtained by the developer / SRUIL.

55

NO COMPOUNDING OF DEVIATIONS OUGHT IN THE PROJECT That in Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa and Ors, (2004) 8 SCC 733, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “… only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide or are attributable to some misunderstanding or are such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition would be far less than disadvantage suffered. Other than these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare minimum. The officials who have connived in encouraging and abetting unauthorized or illegal constructions should be spared. In developing cities, the strength of staff which is supposed to keep a watch on building activities should be suitably increased in the larger public interest to keep a constant and vigilant watch on illegal or authorized constructions.”

56

FINANCIAL FRAUDS & ILLEGALITIES OF SRUIL Ÿ Illegal Mortgaged of Property by SRUIL: SRUIL offered its guarantee and created a mortgage

in 2004 of its entire property including that portion for which Utility Premises Pvt. Ltd. (UPPL) had paid full consideration to SRUIL in 1994, in favour of M/s. IL&FS for a term loan of Rs. 50 cr. sanctioned to M/s. Vijay Infrastructure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. by IL&FS. The SRUIL created Indenture of Mortgage despite the fact that it had given an undertaking before the Delhi High Court on 26.07.2004, that it will not sell and alienate the Property. Ÿ As stated above, SRUIL was a sick company which require to obtain permission from AAIFR

before mortgaging its property. Further, UPPL and CVIL have filed a complaint before Central Bureau of Investigation on 25.08.2005. Ÿ M/s. UPPL when came across the said illegalities and fraud of SRM qua the transaction and

the loan, filed various objections/ complaints and letters to the Governor, RBI (dated 21.09.2005), the Director, CBI (dated 25.08.2005) and the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India (dated 06.09.2005 and 21.09.2005). Ÿ M/s. UPPL had also made a complaint dated 02.05.2005 to the Municipal Commissioner,

BMC informing about the criminal conspiracy on the part of SRUIL. However, still no action from BMC in this regard. Ÿ M/s. UPPL vide another complaint dated 24.09.2005 to the Governor, RBI with a copy to

various supervisory and regulatory authorities and to Banks, complain about SRUIL and others for defrauding and grabbing public money by disbursing loan to SRUIL.\ Ÿ It is submitted that in Clause 15 the agreement with UPPL dated 27.04.1994 clearly mention

that – Ÿ “… SRM shall not hereafter create any third party interest in respect of the said portion

and/or proposed building or any part thereof.”

57

Ÿ Transaction of SRUIL with M/s. Kalapatru Constructions Overseas Ltd.:- It is also learnt that

one M/s Kalapatru Constructions Overseas Ltd. had purchased the property from SRUIL by investing huge monies in the projects of SRUIL and disputes between them is also going on. Ÿ Illegal sale of 28,000 sq. ft. area by SRUIL:- The SRUIL besides the above, had sold 28,000 sq.

mtrs. of land to said M/s. Vijay Infrastructure Project vide an agreement dated 27.06.1996 which on behalf of Vijay Infrastructure Project was taken over by M/s. Vijay Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd. directors of which were the same as SRUIL. The inference can easily be taken that the agreement to sell 28,000 sq. mtrs. by SRUIL was illegal as the agreement entered into was with the persons having interest in the SRUIL. The agreement and transaction between SRUIL and said Vijay Infrastructure Project was a sham arrangement since no documents concerning the said company and/or firm is available with the concerned Registrar of Companies, Mumbai or at the Registrar of Firms, Mumbai. This has been disclosed by M/s. S.K. Jain & Company, Company Secretaries at Mumbai vide their certificate dated 02.03.2001. Ÿ Compensation received by SRUIL regarding setback area:- M/s. UPPL has also learnt that

an area admeasuring 2442.87 sq.yds. concerning C.S. No. 289 of Lower of Parel was handed over and compensation paid. With regard to setback area monitory compensation was paid but SRUIL refused to have received such compensation and availed extra FSI in lieu of that which they consumed in their said Palais Royale project. It was a serious FSI fraud and compensation being investigated by ACB, Mumbai and files/records and register No. 26, 28, 32 33 & 36 are still in the custody of ACB. In this regard, the BMC was also cheated however they did not take any action against SRUIL and its officials. The SRUIL has men & management skill who are expert in managing and influencing people. Ÿ It is relevant to mention that S.Kumars Group of Companies including SRUIL, headed by

Kasliwals are involved in a scam of more than Rs. 40,000 crores. This group owes more than 18,600 crores to government owned Banks & Financial Institutions. The S.Kumars Group is a willful defaulter of their loans. It also owes about Rs. 15,000 crores to the investors in the stock market, vendors, commercial transactions and are having liability of Rs. 5,000 crores towards tax evasion like Income Tax, Central Excise & Customs, Vat etc. The applicant has learnt that some NGO has also filed a public interest litigation before the Hon'ble High Court & Supreme Court of India against the illegalities and frauds of S.Kumars Group of Companies.

58

Ÿ It is relevant to mention that S.Kumars Group of Companies including SRUIL, headed by

Kasliwals are involved in a scam of more than Rs. 40,000 crores. This group owes more than 18,600 crores to government owned Banks & Financial Institutions. The S.Kumars Group is a willful defaulter of their loans. It also owes about Rs. 15,000 crores to the investors in the stock market, vendors, commercial transactions and are having liability of Rs. 5,000 crores towards tax evasion like Income Tax, Central Excise & Customs, Vat etc. The applicant has learnt that some NGO has also filed a public interest litigation before the Hon'ble High Court & Supreme Court of India against the illegalities and frauds of S.Kumars Group of Companies. Ÿ M/s. UPPL has learnt that winding up/ company petitions have already been filed by the

creditors (Banks & FIs) and are pending before the Hon'ble High Courts against some of the S.Kumars Group companies namely – S.Kumars Nationwide Ltd (C.P. No. 511 of 2014), Reid and Taylor (I) Ltd. (C.P. No. 648 of 2013 & C.P. No. 267 of 2013, C.P. No. 639 of 2013, C.P. No. 30 of 2014 etc.). The Hon'ble Court in those petitions has also passed appropriate orders/directions to the Official / Provisional Liquidator. In a similar winding petition against which SRUIL had filed a civil appeal being No. 58495850/2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon'ble apex court has disposed of the appeal on undertaking of SRUIL wherein they agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 18 crores to the respondent M/s Action Barter Private Limited.

59

THE UNDUE PROFIT TO SRUIL AGAINST THEIR GROSSLY VIOLATIONS

PPL was approved for 900 parking spaces but later on the policy was withdrawn and restricted only 4 floors, but illegally constructed 15 storied. The incen ve builtup area of about 18000 sq. mt. is grossly violated and excessively consumed. - the saleable rate is about Rs. 40,000 per sq . -Excess are in unauthorized 162000 s -total receipt from unauthorized construc on (162000 x 40,000)

Premium / Penalty by BMC / MCGM on SRUIL for all the said grossly viola on is Rs. 162 cr. which is a meager amount considering the Benefits to SRUIL amoun ng to Rs. 7,415 cr. approx.

Total areas grossly violated 1. Refuge area: approx 30000 sq. mt. 2. Flower bed: approx 6400 sq. mt. 3. Common passages: approx 9500 sq.mt 4. Swimming pool area: approx 3500 sq m -the saleable rate is about Rs. 40,000 per sq . -Excess are in unauthorized 531737 s -total receipt from unauthorized construc on (531737 x 40,000) Unauthorized Construc on of 13th Floor having 4 flats on each floor:-Selling price per flats Rs. 40 approx -total receipt from unauthorized construc on (13 x 4 x 40 cr) Proposed 72 floors in RERA site, therefore 16 flats are unauthorized proposed: -Selling price per flats Rs. 40 approx -total receipt from unauthorized construc on (16 X 4 x 40 cr)

1

60

Despite of the unauthorised and illegal construction in Palais Royale project, there are various other offences committed being punishable under Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Income Tax Act, 1961 and Bombay Stamps Act, 1958 by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited through collusion, connivance or conspiracy with some other corporate/ financial institutions having great influence in the market. The UHRF state as under:

Brief about the Project 'Palais Royale' Ÿ

M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd is the owner of a large piece of land admeasuring 28,409.57 sq.mts. at Worli Mumbai, on part of land being Plot 5B + 6, whereupon it proposed to construct the said building 'Palais Royale' comprising of 2 levels basement and 73 levels of upper floor) and a Public Parking Lot. The last plan for residential building for 56 floors was approved on 8.2.2011, however commencement certificate has been endorsed upto 43 floors only vide letter dated 18.11.2011. The structure of the building has been lying complete however there are severe violations of building bye-laws particularly misuse of Refuse Area and gross negligence of fire safety guidelines as issued by government time to time.

Ÿ

On 24.01.2005, the proposed plans for commercial building and car service centre were approved by the MCGM. It is claimed that the last plan for residential building for 56 floors was approved on the 08.02.2011. From 1st to the 43rd floors of the building consist of 112 flats (76 Sky Apartments, 32 Manors and 4 Villas). Out of the 112 flats, 84 flats have already been sold as on date for a value of Rs. 2162 cr against which there is a receivable of approx Rs. 950 cr. Upto 43rd floor, the dispute remain as to whether Refuge Area in the periphery of every floor (measuring approximately 12,600 sq. mtrs. upto 43rd floor) and 4900 sq. mtrs. at the entrance or the 3 refuge floors (measuring 9753 sqmtrs.) is to be allowed free of FSI.

Ÿ

The Developer SRUIL has taken secured loan from M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (hereinafter referred as IBHFL) and the entire project is mortgaged to IBHFL. As part of the larger dealing, IBHFL apart from advancing loans to the SRUIL, has also advanced loans to various group companies/ sister concerns of the SRUIL. As on 30.06.2017, the IBHFL has shown an outstanding of Rs. 592 cr in SRUIL and Rs. 676 cr. in other accounts (Total Rs. 1268 cr). 61

The modus-operandi of SRUIL and cheating & fraud with government and public at large and probable offences of gratification under Prevention of Corruption Act : Ÿ

Now, UHRF would like to place on record the cheating and frauds of the company M/s SRUIL concerning the statutory dues / government taxes and against the public at large which is a serious offences of gratification under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this connection, the UHRF would like to place before you the ghastly intention of SRUIL whereby they almost succeeded in their plan to dissolve the company SRUIL by initiating a collusive proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.

Ÿ

The company SRUIL in its attempt has succeeded to drain out funds from the project i.e. Palais Royal in collusion, connivance or conspiracy with the said Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd and other corporate / financial institutions. The said SRUIL is not only responsible for the offences committed but other entities/ individuals who were directly or indirectly involve in their strategy and have committed the said scam, are liable to be prosecuted. It is apparent as revealed from the records/ documents available with UHRF that the following entities / persons were/are involved in the offences/ scam as stated:

62

I) M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd / SRUIL; SRUIL is a listed company and involved in real estate development and construction business. The company being listed one, huge public funds are invested in the Company including fund raised from the Banks and Financial Institutions and monies invested by the space / flat buyers in their various projects. II) Mr. Vikas Shambukumar Kasliwal; Vice Chairman & Managing Director, M/s Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. III) M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited / IBHFL; A Non-Banking Finance Company and also a listed public limited company. As a listed company, massive public fund are invested in the said company. iV) Mr. Sameer Gehlaut; Chairman, M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited. V) Mr. Saket Bahuguna; CEO, M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited Vi) M/s. Adhita Realty Private Limited; This company though has been formed as a private limited company, however, it is merely a dummy enterprise which is a part of ABIL Group of Companies owned by some Mr. Avinash Bhosale who was/is a shareholder and authorised signatory of the company

63

VII) Mr. Avinash Bhosale; Promoter / Director / Authorized Signatory of ABIL Group of Companies. VIII) M/s. Action Barter Private Limited (ABPL); Also a private limited having authorized capital of Rs. 11 lacs and is being represented by Mr. Ghanshyam Sarda as owner of Group Companies. This company is also fake entity which is a part of Mr. Ghansyam Sarda and has been incorporated and activated with sole purpose to siphon of funds whenever need arises purely the whims and fancies of its promoters & Directors. T he U H R F has done an extensive research with re ga rd to t h e f i n a n c i a l irregularities of these entities and have collected information / evidences as available in public domain and by other reliable sources. A.

T he C onspiracy for initiating Liquidation process and filing of winding up petition collusively by M /s. Action Barter Private Limited before Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Company Petition No. 1066 of 2015

I)

The said M/s Action Barter Private Limited (ABPL) filed a winding up petition being No. 1066 of 2015 against the Company SRUIL under Section 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 before Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the year 2015. The said Action Barter Pvt. Ltd. in the said petition has demanded / claimed a sum of Rs. 21.76 cr from SRUIL.

64

ii)

It is stated that ABPL had purchased two flats being Flat No. 21 NE and 22 SW in the said project building Palais Royale of SRUIL. However, due to non-progressing of project by SRUIL, ABPL has to surrender said two flats for which the Developer SRUIL agreed to pay / refund them a sum of Rs. 18 cr.

iii)

On 05.10.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay appointed as Provisional Liquidator of SRUIL in the above company petition of the ABPL. The Provisional Liquidator forthwith took charge of the assets/properties and records of SRUIL without any notification.

iv) Thereafter, the said order was challenged in Special Leave Petitions in the matter filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, after the order passed by the Supreme Court on 27/02/2017, parties filed consent terms before Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in said Company Petition No. 1066 of 2015. The undertaking recorded in the consent terms were accepted by SRUIL and the petition came to be disposed of in terms thereof on 22/03/2017. v)

Later on SRUIL defaulted in payment of the instalments as per the consent terms as a result the petition stands admitted and advertised and the matter was stand over to 24/08/2017.

65

66

II) The said ABPL did not pay even a single penny to SRUIL for booking of the above two flats. Since no payment was made by ABPL to SRUIL, therefore, same is not disclosed by them in the proceedings before various courts. III) Interestingly, the rights in the said two flats were surrendered surreptitiously by ABPL to SRUIL for which SRUIL agreed to pay Rs. 18 cr. to ABPL and for this they even entered into a cancellation agreement dated 02.04.2014 despite the fact that no consideration whatsoever was paid for the said flats. IV) The perusal of records and documents available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, reveals that only onepage Balance Sheet for the financial year ending 31st March 2009, 2010 and 2011 were filed by ABPL with the Registrar of Companies. The perusal of balance sheet for the financial year ending 31st March 2012, does not reveal transaction regarding purchasing of above two flats by ABPL in the project Palais Royale. There is no disclosure in the balance sheet regarding purchasing of these two flats. VI) The fictitious entry of purchase of flats in the project Palais Royale was only an accommodation entry and meant to establish the claim for execution of cancelation agreement dated 02.04.2014. This is a classic case of drain out funds and present to entire world that the company is facing financial crunch so that company's assets can be sold to selective people or firm at distressed rate and then sell the same into the open market at high price. VII) In alternative, it is also possible that an understanding between SRUIL and ABPL may have arrived whereby ABPL was to act as a go-between and managing the various governments authorities regarding the project 'Palais Royale' on behalf of SRUIL and obtain the various permission and occupation certificate by suitably greasing the government machinery. Since funds for this work could not be allocated legally, therefore this circuitous route is adopted where an alleged purchase is made without consideration and a cancellation agreement was executed on account of non-fulfilment of the terms of a “non-existent Sale Agreement” and an amount of Rs. 18 Cr. was agreed to pay on account of cancellation of Sale Agreements wherein no payment was made at all.

67

In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the above transaction of SRUIL with ABPL is an accommodation and was to convert an illegal transaction as a legal one and also to mislead the Hon'ble Courts. They have not disclosed the proper facts before the Hon'ble courts which is required to be investigated and persons who p a rt ic ip ated , a d va n ced a n d performed the illegal act(s) are required to be prosecuted for establishing integrity and probity in public and corporate life. B . F ra u d u l e n t e xe c u t i o n o f M e m o r a n d u m o f Understanding (MOU) dated 24.09.2015 between SRUIL and Adhita Realty Private Limited: As demonstrated above, SRUIL has succeeded in its strategy to get the Company dissolved in collusive proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. SRUIL has also succeeded in draining out funds from the project through collusion, connivance or conspiracy with some other corporate/financial institution. The detail of such acts and omissions are stated herein below:Recently, Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IBHFL) filed an Insolvency Petition before the Hon'ble NCLT, Bombay against the SRUIL. IBHFL apart from advancing loans to the SRUIL, has also advanced various loans to group companies/sister concerns of the SRUIL as part of the larger dealing. IBHFL by way of demand notice dated 12.03.2015 and 13.03.2015, demanded that all alleged dues under the concerned loan agreements be paid by SRUIL, failing which, proceedings would be initiated. Additionally IBHFL has also issued 7 statutory notices dated 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, calling upon SRUIL and its sister concerns to pay the loan amount, failing which proceedings under SARFAESI would be initiated. Despite knowing the financial status of SRUIL and having initiated recovery proceedings, IBHFL funded the project 'Palais Royale' of SRUIL. Again SRUIL hatched a conspiracy and executed strategy along with IBFHL and said Mr. Avinash Bhosale, MD of M/s Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd. to defraud government and public at large. The Modus-oprendi of theirs' is as follows:-

68

I)

Mr. Sameer Gehlaut, the Chairman of IBHFL who played role of a facilitator, introduced Mr. Saket Bahuguna the CEO of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd to Mr. Avinash Bhosale, CEO of M/s Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd. After various rounds of meetings between Mr. Vikas Kasliwal, Mg. Director, SRUIL, Mr. Saket Bahuguna representing IBHFL and Mr. Avinash Bhosale executed an agreement wherein Mr. Avinash Bhosale consented to act for resolving the impediments in the way of the project Palais Royale of SRUIL.

ii) Consequently, the MOU dated 24.09.2015 was executed between SRUIL and Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd. which is a part of ABIL Group and where Mr. Avinash Bhosale was shareholder and authorised signatory. iii) According to the said MOU, SRUIL agreed to sell 8 (eight) apartments in 'Palais Royale' for a total consideration of Rs. 120 cr i.e. Rs. 15 Cr. per flat which is much below not only to the prevailing market price for the apartments but even to the admitted sale price to other flat purchasers. IV) The reading of the text of said MOU discloses that it is not a simple sale-purchase agreement wherein a party has agreed to purchase a number of flats from a builder who is facing cash crunch and selling flats at distressed rates. In fact the said MOU does not record any actual sale-purchase or payment of consideration but contingent upon certain other activities. Basically it is a liaison agreement which has been given cloak of sale-purchase agreement. V) As per the MOU, M/s. Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Mr. Avinash Bhosale) had undertaken to obtain Occupation Certificate (OC) from the Municipal Corporation for the project and to manage for resolving all pending proceedings and complaints filed by M/s. Kalpatru Properties Pvt. Ltd and statutory bodies. VII) Interestingly, IBHFL was kept in loop throughout the transaction rather it was facilitator of the same which is apparent from the fact that once the SRUIL had entered into MOU with Mr. Bhosale, the IBFL decided not to pursue the notices dated 12.03.2015, 13.03.2015, 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 which were issued to SRUIL. In addition to this in the past, No objection certificate was granted by the IBHFL for sale of Flats for more than Rs. 25 cr, whereas NOC was granted by IBHFL for sale of flats of Rs. 15 cr which was much lower than the requisite lower threshold. VIII)Moreover, Mr. Vikas Kasliwal, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. has submitted his written submission before the Hon'ble the National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai in the matter of company petition no. 1519/2017 wherein produced as under:

69

“9.2. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Financial Creditor, Mr. Sameer Gehlaut, intrdcued the CEO of the Corporate Debtor to Mr. Avinash Bhosale and further stated that Mr. Bhosale would be aboe to assist the Corporate Debtor to resolve all the regulatory and other disputes which the Corporate Debotr was suffering from. By way of various meetings on 14.09.2105, 16.09.2015 and 17.09.2015, it was agreed between Mr. Vikas Kasliwal, CEO of the Corporate Debtor, Mr. Saket Bahuguna, Chief Legal Officer of the Financial Creditor and Mr. Avinash Bhosale that Mr. Bhosale would act as a nominee of the Financial Creditor and help resolve the impediments in the project of the Debtor and until such time that Mr. Bhosale was a part of the project, the Financial Creditor would be fully supportive of the Corpoate Debtor.” 9.3. Thereafter, 0n 24.09.2015, a MOU was entered into between the Corproate Debtor and Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd., a coproate entity which was part of the ABIL Goup and where Mr. Avinash Bhosale was shareholder and authorised signatory. By way of the MOU, the Corporate Debtor sold elight apartments in 'Palais Royale' for a total consideration of Rs. 120 crores, which was very below the market rate for the apartments. In return, the corporate entity had undertaken to obtain occupation certificate (OC) from the Municipal Corporation for the subject building and further, to assist in resolving all pending proceedings and complaints filed by M/s. Kalpatru Properties Pvt. Ltd., both of which were grave impediments to the sustenance of the corporate debtor's business… 9.4. Further, where in the past, NO Objection Certificate (NOC) was granted by the Financial Creditor for sale of flats for more than Rs. 25 crores, NOC was granted by the Financial Creditor for sale of flats for Rs. 15 crores, which was much lower than the requisite lower threshold. This further testifies the existence of an arrangement between the three parties. In view of the above, the object of the said MOU is illegal. Comprehensive reading of the said MOU reveals that the same is executed to obtain the requisite permission from MCGM in respect of the project and to use all tactics to get resolved all the litigations and proceedings pending before the various courts. Further, it also reveals that having full knowledge of the project and SRUIL group and their companies and their insolvency, the consideration in the said MOU were arranged by IBHFL indirectly through sister concerns of Adhita Realty Ltd. Whereas IBHFL has already issued statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in the July 2015. Apparently the said MOU dated 24/09/2015 has been executed for making all efforts including influencing the government officials and various authorities by doling out monetary benefits and for that purpose, the discount of Rs. 80 cr (Rs. 10 cr for each flat) is given to Mr. Avinash Bhosale indirectly by fixing the consideration of one flat at Rs. 15 Cr. despite admittedly a flat is worth Rs. 25 cr.

70

Reading of the said MOU reveals that the benefit of Rs. 80 cr is not given to Mr. Avinash Bhosale for making the payment of Statutory Charges/Challan/other charges for obtaining the occupation certificate from MCGM and other statutory bodies, as the builder has taken the responsibility for making the said payments directly. It also reveals that the said MOU dated 24/09/2015, is actually executed for tax and stamp duty evasion as the sale consideration of each flat is fixed at Rs. 15 cr whereas the market value/fair value of the said flats is more than Rs. 25 cr each which is fixed as threshold price of each flat. It is stated that said MOU dated 24/09/2015 does not any commercial transaction, it is a conspiracy against government and innocent purchasers of Flats in Palais Royale project. On the perusal of the records/documents, the following were revealed: I) This MOU is a scam of Stamp Duty:-The eight flats were purchased by Mr. Avinash Bhosale at a consideration of Rs. 15 cr for each flat which is much lower than the requisite lower threshold of Rs. 25 cr per Flat. There is a scam of stamp duty in the said agreement for total value of Rs. 80 cr in eight flats. The said liability of stamp duty should be paid by purchaser or builder / developer to the government. This absolutely a loss of revenue to the government exchequer. ii) Planning for tax evasion:-There is planning for tax evasion through said agreement, as eight flats were purchased by Mr. Avinash Bhosale for a consideration of Rs. 15 cr each flat, this is much lower than the requisite lower threshold of Rs. 25 cr. The income tax liability on the difference amount of purchase price and fair value i.e. Rs. 80 cr is clearly being evaded. “If a property is sold below the stamp duty value/Fair value, the stamp duty value /Fair Value shall be the deemed value of consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gain. The original consideration shall not be consider for the purpose of capital gain in the hands of seller. These provisions seem to have been enacted to curb the menace of black money in property transactions. Tax evasion is the illegal evasion of taxes by individuals, corporations, and trusts. Tax evasion often entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability and includes dishonest tax reporting, such as declaring less income, profits or gains than the amounts actually earned, or overstating deductions. Tax evasion is an activity commonly associated with the informal economy. One measure of the extent of tax evasion is the amount of unreported income, which is the difference between the amount of income that should be reported to the tax authorities and the actual amount reported. In contrast, tax avoidance is the legal use of tax laws to reduce one's tax burden. Both tax evasion and avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a range of activities that intend to subvert a state's tax system, although such classification of tax avoidance is not indisputable, given that avoidance is lawful, within self-creating systems.”

71

I) Role of IBHFL in the said conspiracy: - Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd arranged the fund of Rs. 120 cr. regarding the consideration of the said MOU dated 24/09/2015 to Mr. Avinash Bhosale and the same were paid to SRUIL. Despite of knowing all facts of the project and SRUIL group and their companies and their insolvency proceeding, the consideration in the said MOU were arranged by IBHFL indirectly. Whereas, IBHFL had already issued statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in the July 2015. Moreover, SRUIL has already mortgaged its entire project in favour of IBHFL. Further, in the past No objection certificate was granted by the IBFHL for sale of Flats for more than Rs. 25 cr, whereas NOC was granted by IBFHL for sale of flats of Rs. 15 cr which was much lower than the requisite lower threshold. IV) Offence under Prevention of Corruption Act: It is also revealed that the said MOU dated 24/09/2015 was entered and executed for making illegal efforts through providing some bribes to the government officials and various authorities. As, the benefit of Rs. 80 cr (Rs. 10 cr for each flat) were given to Mr. Avinash Bhosale indirectly. It is a fit case for investigation to ascertain as to whom said amount of Rs. 80 cr was distributed and given as undue benefits. It is also revealed that the said net benefit of Rs. 80 cr to Mr. Avinash Bhosale was not for making the payment of Statutory Charges/Challan/other charges for obtaining the occupation certificate from MCGM. As per the said MOU dated 24/09/2015, the builder (SRUIL) was responsible for making the said payment directly.

72

V) Bogus/Forged Transaction: It is pertinent to note that on the perusal of records and documents available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Balance Sheet for the financial year ended 31st March 2014, filed by Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd., it is crystal clear that the net worth of the said company was only Rs. 64,789/- there was no business in the said company. There were a negative reserve and surplus upto Rs. 1.30 cr. however, to show the positive net-worth, they have booked one entry of Rs. 1.30 cr showing as borrowing from shareholders/directors. In the financial year ended 31st March, 2015, there is also no business in the company and other income of Rs. 1.5 cr were booked with proper disclosure of the same. By which they tried to make the positive net worth of the company only. In the financial year ended 31st March, 2016 i.e. the year of executing the above MOU dated 24/09/2015, the company had shown in their balance sheet that they have obtained the loan of Rs. 36 crores from Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited for 60 months and simultaneously they invested the amount of Rs. 27.33 cr in their partnership firm namely ABIL Propcon. Despite, they have mentioned in their balance sheet that they have obtained an amount of Rs. 30 cr as an advance from customers whereas there is no business and no assets in the company. Conclusion: Now, it is submitted that in a collusive proceeding initiated by Action Barter Private Limited before Company Court Bombay, the provisional liquidator has been appointed in SRUIL vide order dated 05/10/2016 and 24/08/2017 who has taken symbolic possession of the property of the company. Simultaneously, IBHFL has also filed a insolvency petition before the NCLT, Mumbai against SRUIL to show their bonafide recovery against the SRUIL. From the above, it is stated that now IBHFL, Action Barter and promoters of SRUIL are trying to liquidate SRUIL in collusion with each other as they have already siphoned off the funds. All the above persons / entities are actively involved in the said conspiracy. Ultimately in all this episode, there has been a loss to government exchequer and grabbing of public money by the people named hereinabove and it necessitate thorough and proper investigated by proper authority like Central Bureau of Investigation.

73

Refuge Area – A must to secure one’s survive in the High-Rise Building | UHRF

Refuge Area – A must to secure one’s survive in the High-Rise Building by Admin | Sep 19, 2017 | United Human Rights Federation | 6 comments

 

“Refuge Area” – The last line of defense of skyscraper is at stake now!!! Refuge areas are areas in a high-rise building where common people can hide or take shelter in case of any fire accident or emergency. Though there is an extreme need of these areas for which Government has also mentioned strict code for building development in National Building Code (NBC) but these areas are often misused by Developers, contractor, architectures etc. who surreptitiously try to convert them or use the space into habitable areas for their maximum profit and selfish motives. In most cases, such developments are sold to buyers who illegally stay or utilize them for residential or commercial purposes. Whether or not any building is commercial or residential; if the buildings cross the height of seventh floors in any metropolitan city of the India the building shall be recognized under high-rise buildings where as per NBC code, a refuge area must be present on the seventh floor. Also, the Terrace Floor of the building will be considered as “Refuge Area”. As per the new Rules, a Refuge Area must be provided at every 7th habitable floor exactly after the first 24 meters of the building. The Refuge Area also must be provided within building line at floor level. For high-rise buildings having more than 30 meters heights, the first Refuge Area shall be provided at 24 meters or at 1st floor. After that, the Refuge Area shall be provided at every 7th habitable floor. The Refuge Area must have a door painted or fixed with a sign in luminous paint mentioning “REFUGE AREA”. As per the stated rules, refuge areas are designated exclusively for the use of temporary shelter and the use of Fire Brigade Department or also for exercises/drills if conducted by the Fire Brigade Department. Though it was mentioned strictly that “REFUGE AREA” cannot be used for any entertainment activities or other events like Indoor game, yoga class etc. but a continuous violation in each and every high-rise building is continuously been seen at most of the high-rise buildings in Mumbai, Delhi etc. It is found that many societies rent this flat for a party or conducting classes which are not permitted as per fire & safety act 2005 MC or some builders add these areas into their construction project as the luxurious construction of flower beds, voids etc, to sell the apartment to have maximum profit as they can gain. Any builders or society can go to JAIL if anyone complaint with proof that any builder has misused the Refuge Area for illegal construction or prove that MC has rented this area. After all, There is nothing important than safety and precaution of lives of common people. We can live in skyscraper only if, “Building Stays Firm, Citizen Stays Safe”.

74

Refuge Area – A must to secure one’s survive in the High-Rise Building | UHRF

6 Comments Raunak Bokhre on September 19, 2017 at 7:32 am Is this happening in all states or just in metropolitan cities???

Reply

Krishan Chowdhury on September 19, 2017 at 7:38 am Why authority is not cross checking it?? I mean if they do the violation can be easily checked and proper action can be taken.

Reply

Bhaskar Nandi on September 19, 2017 at 7:40 am But that is not the solution Krishan. That is just checking. But what about stopping this illegality from it’s root?

Reply

Rishi Singh on September 23, 2017 at 5:26 am Can anyone please explain why this is so important for nation’s growth!!!

Reply

Jhanvi Reddi on September 23, 2017 at 5:31 am If Refuge Area is compulsory for the skyscraper then why builders are so stagnant about it and still they are able to get away with violation!!!

Reply

Rahul Kakapuri on September 25, 2017 at 11:45 am If Refuge Area such important for human lives, it should be taken care of and supervised properly!!!

Reply

75

UHRF – the only voice of reason against the sins of “Palais Royale” | UHRF

UHRF – the only voice of reason against the sins of “Palais Royale” by Admin | Sep 14, 2017 | United Human Rights Federation | 5 comments

UHRF – the only voice of reason against the sins of “Palais Royale” st The ultimate battle b / w  justice and illegality of development of the 21  century There are many cases in the high-rise building or skyscraper development and construction process where fire safety norms are not complied with, which may result in disaster for the occupants. One such example is that of a high-rise residential building, Palis Royale in Worli Mumbai where fire safety norms are blunted flouted by developers for commercial gains. Palais Royale is a skyscraper being built at Worli Naka, Lower Parel Mumbai. With regards to the unauthorized constructions & misuse of Refuge Area in the project Palais Royale, the main issues, challenges & submissions in the Public Interest Litigation No. 43 of 2012, filled by Janhit Manch and others V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors was broadly categorized as: Public Parking Lot (PPL) and Stop Work notices; Main residential building and the commencement certificates; Refuge Area and Fire Fighting arrangements ; Compensation for setback area; Height of habitable floors; Passages at manor level; Service floors; Amenity floors; FSI of Duplex floors; Other issues like servant toilets, structural columns, toilets at the duplex level, flower beds etc. THE UHRF’S ACTION AGAINST ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS The UHRF has learned from their thorough research that the entire project ‘Palais Royale’ is now mortgaged in favor of Indiabulls Limited for 1335 cr. Then how the individual flats can be again mortgaged other Banks? This is a case of a double mortgage by the Developer SRUIL.   Besides, it is absolutely illegal to mortgage the project with Indiabulls Ltd since the building Palais Royale has been erected using leasehold as well as freehold lands. The project Palais Royale is marred with unethical transactions as some of the flats have been allotted to the Auditors of the developer company as well as to its Architects. How one can expect a fairness in the transaction if such illegal and unethical practices were adopted?

76

UHRF – the only voice of reason against the sins of “Palais Royale” | UHRF

As stated earlier above, the right and interest of several flat purchasers who have purchased space in the project are at stake due to the illegalities & irregularities being committed by the developer in connivance with the officials of the municipal corporation and other local civic agencies. Ultimately, it is the flat owners/purchasers who fall prey to such wrong and illegal activities of the developer company.  In the wake of Campa Cola Compound Case also of Mumbai, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held the construction of buildings at the compound as illegal and ordered demolition of such flats and apartments. The company SRUIL, its officials and MCGM by their aforesaid acts of omission and commissions have left the Flats buyers in a pity state having dark future. On the basis of UHRF’s comprehensive research and analysis on Palais Royale case with all related documents received from various sources which proof the illegal constructions at Palais Royale, the UHRF, one and only sole body has briefly described all the unauthorized and illegal construction carried out by the developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd and its associates and request to take strict action against all the violators and presented it to various government authorities, entities and ministries. With their day and night effort, UHRF is trying to be the light of example which only makes us realize that enough of tolerating the illegal activity it’s time to act on it together as one. After all, One who commits a crime and who tolerates it, both are criminal and equally guilty!

5 Comments Priya Aggarwal on September 14, 2017 at 9:24 am What about other Organization?? Where are they? Just because they are big organization that does not mean that all crime committed by them could be overlooked. Good work UHRF. Keep it up.

Reply

Krishan Chowdhury on September 14, 2017 at 9:29 am OMG!!! How come common people don’t know this?? All these violation in just one construction project. Then what about all other construction happening in the nation!!! who is supervising them!!

Reply

Sujoy Bose on September 19, 2017 at 6:23 am What is happening in the country? Now Real Estate is also under hub of illegality!!!

Reply

77

NEXUS OF SRUIL WITH THE OFFICIALS OF BMC/MCGM Ÿ

There has been a nexus between SRUIL and the officials of BMC/ MCGM. The said Palais Royale is full of gross illegalities & irregularities and the said project / building as the same is being constructed unauthorisedly even by using extra FSI (which they were not entitled to and is without any authority/sanction) and in violation of the rules and regulations framed in this regard and with active connivance and collusion with the officials of BMC/ MCGM.

Ÿ

As per the records available from the BMC/ MCGM, it is revealed that an area admeasuring 2442.87 sq. yds. situated in C.S. No. 289 of Lower Parel was acquired by Bombay Municipal Corporation for widening the road near Mill premises. The BMC paid compensation for the same to SRUIL in the year 1976. As per the BMC records specifically in the letter dated 08.08.1992 issued by SE (Survey), Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to Mr. M.K. Kelkar, Architect of SRUIL, it was clearly mentioned that area admeasuring 2442.87 sq.yds. along Fargusson Road i.e. G. Kadam Marg has been handed over and compensation paid.

Ÿ

It is surprising that despite the information vide letter dated 08.08.1992 of SE (Survey), MCGM of making compensation to SRUIL, the Asst. Engineer, Acquisition (City), BMC vide a letter dated 16.06.1993 informed Mr. Kelkar that their request to avail of FSI advantage in lieu of setback land comprised in C.S. No. 289 of Lower Parel Division handed over free of cost to the Municipal Corporation on 15th March, 1976, will be considered. After a period of about 8 years, the A.E. (Maint.), G/South, MCGM vide a letter dated 25.09.2001 informed E.E.B.P. (City), MCGM that the set back area of 2442.87 Sq. Yards along G.K. Marg has been taken over by their office in the year 1976, however, monetary compensation is not paid.

Ÿ

It is pertinent to mention that the possession of the setback area was taken over by Bombay Municipal Corporation in the year 1976 and the compensation was paid to the owners / SRUIL, then in what manner the surrender of land for setback was termed as “free of cost” to Bombay Municipal Corporation as appeared in subsequent correspondence with the SRUIL? It appears that the officials of BMC and SRUIL have collusively and clandestinely labelled the land as given “free of cost” just to take advantage of the FSI later on at their project 'Palais Royale'.

78

Ÿ

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in its speaking order dated 12.09.2013, on the issue of FSI in lieu of setback area, while calling officers from the ULC Department has also confirmed producing of the said letter dated 08.08.1992 before him by ULC Department. However, the Commissioner MCGM has observed that in the absence of conclusive documentary evidence, the FSI advantage in lieu of handing over the set back area cannot be considered at that stage.

Ÿ

The absence of “conclusive evidence” as mentioned in the Speaking Order dated 12.09.2013 of the Commissioner MCGM signifies missing of documents concerning handing over possession of the land and receiving of monetary compensation by SRUIL. The files and details regarding the handing over – taking over and payment of compensation etc. were found not available in the office record of EEB (City); being the same are missing or misplaced. Later, taking advantage of it, SRUIL despite having received compensation availed extra FSI in the year 2013 in lieu of that and consumed the said extra FSI available, in their said 'Palais Royale' project by concealing true facts and by misrepresentation. This is a serious FSI fraud on the part of the SRUIL because of which the total FSI of 1,20,000 sq.ft. could not be developed by UPPL leaving a shortfall of 37,985 sq.ft. FSI.

Ÿ

The acts and conduct of the officials of the MCGM and the SRUIL are illegal and of gross misconduct and require thorough investigation. This is a serious FSI fraud collusively committed by SRUIL, its officials and the officials of BMC/MCGM and investigation of which is already being done by Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. A letter dated 06.07.2013 was issued under RTI from Dy.Ch.Eng. (B.P.City) to the Addl. Police Commissioner, ACB confirming complaint about compensation received by SRM/SRUIL and mentioning of the files/ records and register No. 26, 28, 32 & 36 which are still in the custody of ACB and the ongoing investigation in the matter.

Ÿ

It is stated that lots of documents of UPPL concerning transactions of 1,20,000 sq. ft FSI, Bhiwandiwala Building and Commercial Area projects have been misplaced from the records of BMC/MCGM. However, M/s. UPPL has been able to obtain some documents/ records through RTI. It is believed that there exists a huge nexus between SRUIL and its officials with the officials of MCGM and it is apprehend that documents / records time to time filed with MCGM might have removed from the office of MCGM leaving meager evidence left with MCGM. \

Ÿ

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai now a day has become a notorious place of corruption. There are lots news reports / articles about the rampant corruption at BMC/MCGM.

79

FLAT BUYERS IN THE PROJECT 'PALAIS ROYALE' ARE MAJORLY INVESTORS An IA No. 116638 has been filed by Palais Royale Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed) in Transferred Case No. 271/2016 allegedly represented by 44 members holding 60 flats in the project Palais Royale. The said I.A. and affidavit filed by the proposed Society is misleading whereby they have not only mis-represented and concealed the facts from this Hon'ble Court but has also misused and abused the process of the judicial system. The Applicant has further learnt that the said proposed intervener has stated that 'majority of the members' of the Society owns residential houses up to 43rdfloor and admitted that there is dispute only over the consumption and quantum of Refuge Area. Admittedly the Developer has merged the 'Refuse Area' with the flats and sold the same to the flats purchasers despite their knowledge right from the beginning that the merging and selling of the refuge area is unauthorized and illegal. Thus, the alleged flat buyers (Interveners) are trying to take advantage of the illegalities of the developer with malafide. Moreover, the expression 'Majority of the Members' has deliberately been used to mislead Hon'ble Court by making submission that there exists only 44 members of proposed Society. The proposed Society has deliberately concealed the true fact by not mentioning the Flat Number, Floor Number, Area of Flat(s) etc. which could have been easily done had the intent of the intervener proposed Society is bonafide. The intervention application of the proposed Society seems to have been moved with an ulterior motive. Interestingly, huge number of flat buyers / purchaser has been intentionally left out of the intervention application filed by the proposed Society. The intervention application of proposed Society is nothing but a deliberate attempt to obtain a favourable order in favour of the proposed Society and the developer petitioner by presenting contrived facts. That the said proposed society has given a list of flat buyers of Palais Royale, which shows that there are just 35 flats up to 43rdfloor, whereas the proposed Society has filed/ made Intervention regarding 60 flats. This absolutely is a misleading submission by the proposed Society and is an attempt to regularize the extra 25 flats unauthorizedly constructed by the developer beyond the 43rd floor. Further, the documents available on the website of the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai, gives an absolute contradictory picture where 115 flats in total were shown transacted / sold by the developer petitioner from time to time. The list/ detail of flat buyers prepared by the intervener/ applicant shows that there are 54 flats upto 43rd floor and 61 flats which are beyond the 43 floor.

80

QUESTIONS / ISSSUES IN MEDIA CIRCLE Question No. 1Why the Mumbai Corporation of Mumbai (BMC/MCGM) should not demolish the excess 13 floors constructed in Palais Royale building of the developer SRUIL since the same have been constructed without permission. Question No. 2Since the 13 floors beyond 43rd floor are constructed without permission were why the BMC has not taken any action against the developer SRUIL when these floors were being constructed? Why BMC / MCGM has not objected for the same at that time? Question No. 3Why there was / is not a “stop work” notice issued against the errant developer of SRUIL by the Municipal Corporation ? Question No. 4How can the illegalities of the project be compounded by levying of fine / penalty of Rs. 160 crores by the Commissioner of BMC by the developer company? Question No. 5How can the Refuge Area meant for fire safety be allowed to merge with the saleable area of the flat in project Palais Royale? Question No. 6The developer is not holding ownership rights over the entire land of project Palais Royale. How can a leasehold land and freehold be allowed to merge for the project Palais Royale? Question No. 7Why the flat buyers have not objected to the developers of Palais Royale for merging their flats with the Refuge Area ? Question No. 8Why should not criminal case / FIR be registered against the promoter / directors of the developer company for such illegalities and violations? Question No. 9It is learnt that the Flats in the project Palais Royale of SRUIL have been mortgaged twice. How can double mortgage be allowed to the developer?

81

Question No.10Why not the banking license of IBHFL should be immediately cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India and the script of the said company should be delisted from recognised stock exchanges where the same are listed? Question No. 11Why should not an SIT be constituted for thorough investigation into the affairs of all the companies of developer SRUIL? Question No. 12Why not the scrips / shares of the developer company be immediately delisted from recognised stock exchanges where the same are listed and all license granted to SRUIL be cancelled? Question No. 13How can a liquidation order has been passed against the developer company as there was / is no liability of one M/s. Action Barter Pvt. Ltd. against the project?

82

‘Palais Royale’ – India’s tallest building’s fate in HC hands

BMC set to take hammer to JK House at Breach Candy

Infrawindow News Bureau | Mumbai | Aug. 23, 2012, 12:53 PM

The Times Of India | TNN | Aug 22, 2015, 03.01 AM

The Bombay High Court will decide the fate of Palais Royale at Worli naka-touted to be India's tallest building. A PIL filed by NGO Janhit Manch, seeking a stay on the constructuion, has alleged violation of rules in the proposed luxury building where flats are between 8,000 and 14,000 sq ft each.

MUMBAI: A museum offering a breathtaking view of the city from the upper floors of the controversial 37storeyed JThe news comes as the civic administration is all set to order the demolition and sealing of four refuge floors meant for fire safety, which are likely to be misused.

"If the rules have not been followed, then the building has to go," argued senior advocate Navroz Seervai, who along with advocate Jamshed Mistry represented the petitioner. Palais Royale, constructed by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (SRBIL) on the land earlier owned by Shree Ram Mills Ltd, will rise to over 300 metres, while the tallest building is the twin Imperial Towers at 254 metres in Tardeo.

BMC CUTS CITY'S TALLEST BUILDING TO SIZE IN COURT Mumbai Mirror | Oct 11, 2012, 02.26 AM IST

One of south Mumbai's plushest residential projects, Palais Royale, is in deep trouble, with the BMC raising questions over the legitimacy of almost half of the skyscraper in an affidavit filed before the Bombay High Court. T he affidavit, filed in connection with a PIL by NGO Janhit Manch which has sought a stay on Palais Royale's construction, the BMC has pointed out that the building's refuge area at 5,73,165 sq ft is almost as large as its habitable area of 5,88,967 sq ft.

83

HC fines builder and NGO Rs 1 lakh each for delays

HC to decide fate of India's 'tallest' building

Dec 08 201 5 : The Times of India (Mumbai)

Shibu Thomas, TNN | Aug 23, 2012, 03.10AM IST

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Monday directed Janhit Manch and the developer of Palais Royale, one of the largest residential projects in the sland city , to pay a fine of Rs 1 akh each. The NGO will pay cost for delaying the hearing of a petition by developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd, which was expedited by Supreme Court. The developer will pay for moving the acting Chief Justice to review his order tagging the NGO's PIL to its petition.

MUMBAI: The fate of Palais Royale, the under-construction skyscraper at Worli naka-touted to be India's tallest building will be decided by the HC. A PIL filed by NGO Janhit Manch, seeking a stay on the constructuion, has alleged violation of rules in proposed luxury building where flats are between 8,000 and 14,000 sq ft each.

In the original PIL by Janhit Manch,

HIGH COURT ORDERS BMC TO REWORK PALAIS ROYALE’S FSI

challenging the plan, the HC referred it to the civic chief on certain issues.The NGO moved SC and while t was pending, the commissioner passed his order allowing certain aspects of the plan.The developer challenged this o r d e r. O n S e p t e m b e r 7 , S C expedited the developer's matter.

By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | May 14, 2013, 05.20 AM IST

Faults the developer for availing excessive FSI for the 56 storey building's refuge area, but holds a public parking lot built by the company legal The Bombay High Court on Monday delivered its judgment in an FSI violation case against Worli's Palais Royale — handing the developer a small victory, but at the same time ordering the municipal commissioner to rework 56 storey skyscraper's FSI.

The NGO's plea to be added as a party was rejected. It then filed a PIL challenging amendments to DC Rules regarding parking plots.

84

India’s Tallest Residential Building May Have To Rework Its FSI Sep 19, 2013: CommonFloor

Palais Royale located in Worli, Mumbai has many firsts to its credit. The project is a tall hotel, commercial and residential tower developed by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure. It is currently touted as the tallest residential tower in India.The building is India’s first precertified LEED Platinum rated green residential building. The building is also the first building in India to have fastest elevators that travel 7 meters/second and the building is at a breathtaking height of about 300m. On its completion, it will also be the world’s first environmental sustainable building. However, a report from Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) based on High Court’s directive may force the developer of the residential tower to rework its plan. According to BMC’s orders, areas within buildings exempt from Worli Naka buildings’ FSI must now be included. The project The project will have 100 apartments with areas of 8,700 sft and 14,000 sft (almost 90 floors high). Palais Royale will have world class amenities like a cinema house, spa, three swimming pools, badminton court, cricket pitch and a soccer field.

85

Mills and boom

Mumbai’s tallest tower likely to be in trouble

Sheela Raval May 8, 2000 | UPDATED 17:25 IST

Infrawindow News Bureau | Mumbai | Jun. 21, 2012, 03:04 PM

Mumbai textile mill owners find ways of turning industrial wasteland into gold mine

The construction work of the tallest residential tower in the financial hub of the country, Mumbai, the 56-storey Palais Royale in Worli, could be in trouble if allegations made in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Bombay High Court are proved.

Mumbai textile mill owners find ways of turning industrial wasteland into gold mine Ghost town. Rust belt. Symbol of industrial decay. These are some of the epithets Mumbai's downtown Parel had come to acquire since the death of the traditional textile industry in the 1970s.

The PIL by NGO Janhit Manch has alleged several illegalities in sanctions for the construction undertaken by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (SRBIL). According to the PIL, the constructions on the 28, 409 sq m property “are beyond the commencement certificate (CC) and in deliberate breach of the stop-work notices dated July 16, 2011 and December 14, 2011 and a demolition notice of December 19, 2011 under section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966”.

Thanks mainly to high production costs, competition from smaller mills that have lower overheads and a debilitating tax structure, most of the textile mills in this area have either closed down or have been declared sick after they piled up huge losses. That penurious past is fast becoming history in Parel. The tide that took in its ebb jobs and investment out of Parel is beginning to reverse.

Mumbai's tallest building hits snag, PIL filed Infrawindow News Bureau | Mumbai | Aug. 25, 2012, 11:30 AM

Mumbai’s tallest building has hit problems in construction. The residential tower Palais Royale in Worli, designed by Talati & Panthaky Associates with Lehr Consultants and RWDI Engineering, is facing an attack from city-based NGO Janhit Manch for ‘blatant irregularities’ in construction.

86

Worli skyscraper caught in mill land owner-builder dispute TNN | Sep 23, 2013, 03.12 AM IST

MUMBAI: The decade-old land dispute between the Kasliwals, owners of the defunct Shree Ram Mill, and builder Kalpataru has now spilled over into the controversy surrounding construction of Palais Royale, one of India's tallest residential tower, at Worli Naka.

storey tower. SRUIL has accused Kunte of working at the behest of Kalpataru and NGO Janhit Manch,which, it said, is a front for Kalpataru. Alleging a slew of building violations, the NGO had filed a case against SRUIL. The HC while rejecting several points raised by the NGO, directed Kunte to review excess areas in the tower.

Last week, Vikas Kasliwal's Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL), which is building the 320m tower, filed a petition in the Bombay high court against a report by municipal commissioner S J Kunte. The report's findings could reduce the height of the under-construction 56-

Though construction has already reached the 56th floor, the civic administration said that the tower had permission only up to 43 floors and that the developer had not approached it for further clearances.

Blow to India's tallest skyscraper as 13 upper floors deemed illegal

BMC CHIEF ASKS PALAIS ROYALE TO REWORK FSI

TNN | Jan 28, 2016, 04.41 AM IST

Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Sep 1 7 , 201 3, 05.54 AM IST

MUMBAI: In a fresh setback for India's tallest skyscraper, Palais Royale at Worli, the Bombay high court on Wednesday held that the 13 upper floors of the 56-storey building as well as a 15-storey public parking tower next to it were "completely illegal".

The BMC chief has ordered the developer of Worli's Palais Royale, once touted as the city's tallest residential tower, to rework the building's floor space index. Sitaram Kunte has asked Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL) to include the 56-storey skyscraper's controversial refuge area and other spaces that were earlier exempted from FSI in the revised plan.

A division bench of justices Abhay Oka & CV Bhadang called their construction a "brazen defiance" of rules, & has left it to the municipal commissioner to decide the fate of structures.

87

Bombay high court stays civic sanction to refuge areas on Palais Royale decks

Bmc Wants To Seal Palais Royale’s Excessive Boltholes

TNN | Jan 28, 2016, 04.41 AM IST

By Chaitany a Marpakwar, | Updated: Sep 1 3, 201 6

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court, in an interim order on Friday, stayed municipal commissioner Ajoy Mehta's order and restrained the BMC from sanctioning fire refuge areas on the decks of Palais Royale, India's tallest residential building, at Worli Naka. Hearing a public interest litigation filed by NGO Janhit Manch challenging the commissioner's August 2016 order, a division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice Girish Kulkarni gave the BMC three weeks to file its affidavit in the matter.

City reports to Bombay High Court that Worli tower's refuge area is 74 per cent of its total builtup, and should be cut to about 25 per cent. The country's tallest residential complex Palais Royale, which allowed itself a refuge area almost three-fourths of its tremendous 5.5 lakh square metre area in Worli, will have to bring it down to about a quarter of the built-up by sealing the four refuge floors as well as the refuge pockets on every storey.

BMC reworks FSI of tallest residential tower TNN | Sep 17, 2013, 08.05 AM IST

MUMBAI: A high court-directed report prepared by the civic administration could force the developer of Palais Royale, touted as India's tallest residen-tial tower, to rework its plan. The BMC has ordered that areas exempted from the Worli Naka building's floor space index (FSI) be now counted as part of it. FSI is a ratio that determines how much can be built on a plot. The under-construction tower, planned up to 320m, was embroiled in litigation following allegations of building violations.

88

Builder says rival using BMC chief to scuttle skyscraper By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Sep 20, 2013, 01.16 AM IST

The controversy surrounding Palais Royale, one of the city's tallest residential buildings under construction, has taken a new turn with its developer accusing Municipal Commissioner Sitaram Kunte of stalling the project at the behest of a rival real estate firm. In a petition filed at the Bombay High Court on Monday, just days after Kunte asked the developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL) to cut the 320metre tall building's size by almost half, the construction firm said the municipal commissioner is taking orders from real estate giant and its direct competitor Kalpataru Properties Private Limited.

Palais Royale; (Inset) Sitaram Kunte

In petition filed in high court, developer says Sitaram Kunte is taking orders from direct competitor.

Mumbai's municipal commissioner finds irregularities in granting concessions to a skyscraper TNN | Mar 13, 2014, 09.11 PM IST

MUMBAI: A wag once said that behind every skyscraper there is a crime. In Mumbai, they have proliferated in a haphazard manner over the past 15 years, mainly due to arbitrary permissions given by the local civic administration.

89

PAY RS 18 CRORE OR FACE ACTION: HC By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Feb 5, 201 7 , 04.55 AM IST

petitions in the Bombay High Court. In one such petition, the bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice MS Sonak delivered a setback to the company by asking it to deposit Rs 18 crore, failing which, the court said, a provisional liquidator would be appointed on the company. This order, though, won’t be executed until the end of this month. The company behind the plush Palais Royale has time until month end to comply with the court’s orders.

SRUIL had, in fact, filed an appeal against a single judge’s order of October last year. The judge had then directed the company to deposit Rs 5.90 crore.

The company behind Worli’s plush, under-construction Palais Royale, which has been embroiled in litigation for almost five years, seems to have run into financial trouble.

However, Action Barter Pvt Ltd (ABPL), the company, in whose petition the order was passed, too had filed an appeal, and the Chief Justice’s bench enhanced the amount to be deposited by SRUIL from Rs 5.90 crore to Rs 18 crore. According to SRUIL, there was no basis for ABPL to approach HC via a winding up petition.

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL), which is building the apartment complex in which duplexes are estimated to cost Rs 75 crore, is facing winding up

TNN | Jul 17, 2014, 12.58 AM IST

Three-judge SC bench to decide fate of tallest residential tower MUMBAI: The fate of India's tallest residential tower, the 300m-plus Palais Royale at Worli, will now be decided by a

three-judge bench of the Supreme Court after two judges hearing the case delivered differing orders.

90

No HC relief for Palais Royale builders TNN | Oct 22, 2013, 02.02 AM IST

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has refused to grant any interim relief to developers of the city's tallest building Palais Royale in Worli. A division bench of Justice S C Dharmadhikari and Justice Gautam Patel admitted a petition filed by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited, challenging the order of the municipal commissioner to reduce the building's refuge area as well as restrict the size of the public parking lot. "Whether the commissioner's order is in consonance with the view of the division bench of this court, which itself is under challenge before the Supreme Court of India, is a matter which would require consideration and interim relief granted without considering the issues raised would amount to allowing the writ petition itself. That is impermissible in law. Hence, interim relief is refused," said the judges, scheduling the matter for final hearing on November 25. Earlier this year, the HC had refused to order demolition of the building, but asked the commissioner to consider the refuge area granted to the building, which it termed as excessive. The commissioner had directed the developer to reduce the building's refuge area FSI from the current 70% of the total construction to just 4%. This would have meant demolition of the upper floors of the building.

PALAIS ROYALE BUILDER FINED RS 162 CRORE FOR VIOLATIONS TNN | Oct 22, 2013, 02.02 AM IST

MUMBAI: The developer of Palais Royale, India's tallest residential building (294 m), will have to pay the BMC Rs 162 crore as premium and penalties for constructing a 15-storey public parking tower at Worli Naka without permissions. Municipal commissioner Ajoy Mehta last week ordered the levy after the Bombay high court directed the commissioner to decide its fate following a petition challenging its legality. The controversial project has been embroiled in litigation for the past four years after NGO Janhit Manch dragged the developer, Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL), to court for largescale violations. The NGO said the public parking tower is illegal.

92

Under the state government's c r o s s - s u b s i d y p o l i c y, t h e developer received permission to build a 15-storey parking tower in 2010, which it has to hand over free of cost to the BMC for public parking. In return, the developer will receive additional construction rights in the form of incentive floor space index (FSI) for the residential tower named Palais Royale. However in 2011, the BMC changed its policy, restricting the height of public parking lots up to four floors.

TROUBLE FOR WORLI’S PALAISE ROYALE By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Jan 28, 2016, 05.31 AM IST

Infrastructure Ltd was patently illegal. The Court directed the BMC Commissioner to recalculate the permissible FSI, and issue a demolition order for the portion that is found illegal. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd began planning to construct a 15storeyed parking in 2009, after the government announced to increase planned parking lots in the city, which allowed the developer to add another 13 floors to the 46-storey building. Even though permission to construct the planned parking lot was granted only until the plinth, the developer went ahead and constructed all of the planned parking lot and extended the building to 56 floors. The limit for the planned parking lot was later brought down to just four floors, but the developer argued that there was "deemed permission" and it was thus legal.

HC says that only 43 floors of the 56storey building are legal; asks BMC Commissioner to issue a demolition order. The Bombay High Court set aside the 'deemed permission' for a 15-storey public parking lot for the Palais Royale building in Worli and declared that the construction of the 56-storey residential building beyond 43 floors by the developer Shree Ram Urban

be the tallest building in the metropolis after completion. Senior Advocate Navroze Serwai, petitioner's lawyer, argued before the division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice N M Jamdar today that developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (SRBIL) "has indulged in a blatant breach of rules".

Mumbai:PIL seeks demolition of under-construction tallest bldg Press Trust of India | Mumbai August 22, 2012 Last Updated at 19:20 IST

Janhit Manch, the NGO, has filed a PIL alleging irregularities in the construction of `Palais Royale' in Worli, which would

93

Dead in Mumbai fire: Two brothers visiting from US and the aunt they were trying to rescue January 01, 2018

the Kamala Mills complex in the central Mumbai neighbourhood of Lower Parel. Hours later, a bruised Doshi was standing in the smoke-filled compound, praying for the safety of her sister and two nephews. A fire had broken out during their meal, trapping three members of Doshi’s family. Families of 14 victims of restaurant blaze in Kamala Mills complex struggle to cope with the tragedy.

The blaze spread within seconds, Doshi said, and the partitions between the tables started collapsing, causing chaos. “I could only see those large flames and hear people screaming,” recalled Doshi, who is on a visit to the city from the US, where she lives. “My husband and I ran towards the staircase.”

“She never steps out, but I told her to come and have some fun.” That is how Bharti Doshi persuaded her sister Pramila Kinya to join her and the other members of the family at dinner on Thursday night at a restaurant called 1Above on the rooftop of a building in

Over 100 BMC officials face enquiry, action January 01, 2018

MUMBAI: More than 100 BMC officers and engineers could face inquiry and action for allowing illegal alterations and encroachments in restobars, pubs and restaurants in their jurisdictions. The dereliction of duty has come to the fore after the BMC found violation of rules at more than 600 establishments in the city and demolished illegal alterations like the terrace being converted into resto-bars on Saturday and Sunday.

94

Lookout notices against pub owners, safety glare on eateries across Mumbai

Narrow entrance, debris make mill compounds a fire hazard

January 01, 2018

December 31, 2017

MUMBAI:The 1Above blaze that left 14 dead has brought the spotlight back on the vibrant redeveloped mill compounds of central Mumbai that are seen as potential fire traps due to "haphazard planning". TOI visited some of the mill compounds on Saturday and found that most had narrow entrances, there were no clear route maps of emergency exits, and piles of debris and combustible material lay beside construction work for upcoming eateries and pubs.

Mumbai: Mumbai's civic body launched a fire safety drive a day after a blaze killed 14 people at an upscale dining spot, razing illegal structures at 314 sites and sealing seven hotels, the upcoming New Year revelries adding urgency to the crackdown.

“The mills have several eateries, and every week a new restaurant or a pub opens up here. Most are small and crammed spaces and the entry and exits are so narrow that no fire engine would be able to get in, in case of a blaze," said Sameer Bhagtani, a software engineer who frequents the area.

Police issued lookout notices against Hitesh Sanghvi and Jigar Sanghvi, co-owners of 1 Above, the rooftop pub where the fire is suspected to have started. Officers said notices would be issued against other missing accused too. On Friday, the police had booked the Sanghvi brothers, fellow co-owner Abhijeet Manka, and several others on the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and other offences. Civic officials inspected 624 restaurants, pubs and malls across the city and its suburbs, demolished illegal structures at 314 sites and seized 417 cooking gas cylinders, a release said.

95

Fire dept., BMC probe fire cause, politicos make rounds of site December 31, 2017

Mumbai: A day after the Kamala Mills blaze claimed 14 lives, fire brigade officers said they were probing if a fire s t u n t b y a bartender, burning coal used for hookah or a short circuit led to the tragedy. The blaze had started after 12.30 am on Friday at the ‘1 Above’ pub on the terrace of Trade House Building in Kamala Mills compound in Lower Parel, a commercial hub, resulting in collapse of its bamboo-propped canopy. The fire, which left several people injured,

also engulfed Mojo’s Bistro, a pub a storey below. Most of the victims died of asphyxiation. K.V. Hiwrale, Deputy Chief Fire Officer, said, “There are multiple reports from the media on the possible cause of the fire. We need to be absolutely sure. The investigating team would be taking into account eyewitness accounts.” A fire department officer added, “We are probing if the flames created during a fire stunt by a bartender at the pub came in contact with plastic sheets that covered the bamboo structure and triggered the blaze. We are also trying to find out whether the burning coal used for hookah at the adjacent restaurant led to the tragedy.”

Kamala Mills fire: Another fire in Mumbai, 10 days, 23 km, a little apart TNN | December 31, 2017

A little over three hours after the early Friday morning fire at 1Above resto-bar and the adjoining Mojo’s Bistro, Mumbai Municipal Commissioner Ajoy Mehta was at the site, taking stock of the situation. The following afternoon, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis examined the premises and hours later, Mehta ordered the suspension of five civic officials and the transfer of one. The Mumbai Police registered a case of culpable homicide on Friday and has filed four FIRs so far.

Over 10 days earlier, on December 18, a fire no less deadly had swept through Bhanu Farsan Shop, a savouries unit on Saki Naka’s Khairani Road, about 23 km from Kamala Mills. Twelve workers had died in the fire.

96

Kamala Mills fire: Another fire in Mumbai, 10 days, 23 km, a little apart

Morning after blaze, BMC targets illegal structures at restaurants December 30, 2017

December 31, 2017

Mumbai: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) took action against four restaurants with unauthorised constructions in G (South) Ward on Friday, following the fire at Kamala Mill Compound. A BMC spokesperson said civic teams demolished illegal structures in Sky View Cafe and Social Hotel in Kamala Mill Compound and Panayaa, Fumes and Sheesha Sky Lounge in Raghuvanshi Mill Compound. Ward officials said the demolitions will continue on Saturday. Seven open-air restaurants were under the ward officials’ scanner, including 1 Above and Mojo’s Bistro, which were gutted on Friday. The BMC will also carry out an extensive audit of major eateries in the city ahead of New Year’s Eve. Municipal Commissioner Ajoy Mehta has directed all ward-level assistant commissioners.

NEW DELHI: A day after a massive fire at a Mumbai pub killed 14 people, Delhi Fire Services officials on Saturday conducted surprise checks at two major eating hubs — Connaught Place and Khan Market — in the NDMC area. More checks will be conducted across the city to find out the actual seating capacity of each restaurant and a report will be sent to the three corporations and New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). Officials said they would also place fire engines near these hubs to control small blazes.

97