The Pune police's Economic Offences Wing is investigating a loan fraud case involving directors of Gagan Raisoni Vastushilpa Ventures, a realty firm. The directors are accused of securing a loan using flats and shops in a housing society as collateral without the property owners' knowledge. The directors deny the allegations and claim the properties were extended as collateral security, not mortgaged. The complaint was filed by a flat owner, who claims the directors defaulted on the loan payment. The case highlights the need for a thorough investigation to establish the truth and ensure justice for all parties involved.
The economic offences wing (EOW) of the Pune police is currently investigating a loan fraud case amounting to Rs 90.40 crore, allegedly perpetrated by two directors of Gagan Raisoni Vastushilpa Ventures, a realty firm located on Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road. The directors in question, Sushil Agarwal and his father Ghansham, are accused of securing a loan from a finance firm based in New Delhi by using 28 flats and six shops in the Gagan Emerald Cooperative Housing Society as collateral, without the knowledge or consent of the property owners. However, the directors have vehemently denied these allegations.
The complaint was filed by Shabana Shaikh, a flat owner in the project, who claims that the directors defaulted on the loan payment. The fraudulent activities came to light on April 19 when representatives of the finance firm posted 'symbolic possession' notices on the doors of the flats and shops, leaving the property owners shocked and bewildered.
According to Sushil Agarwal, the loan was taken to develop a project in Kamshet near Lonavla, and the flats and shops in Gagan Emerald were extended to the finance firm as additional security before being sold to buyers. He asserts that the properties were not mortgaged and, therefore, there was no obligation to inform the owners about their extension as collateral security.
Agarwal further claims that an alternative property in Patas village near Baramati was mortgaged to the finance firm, and they have requested the withdrawal of the auction proceedings against the buyers in the Gagan Emerald project. However, the firm has yet to withdraw the proceedings, as there is an ongoing dispute between the Agarwals and the finance firm pending adjudication before an arbitrator appointed by the Delhi High Court.
While the allegations raised in the FIR are refuted by the directors, claiming them to be false and baseless, the loan recovery officer of the finance firm has not responded to media inquiries at the time of reporting. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Srinivas Ghadge, has stated that the EOW will appoint an investigating officer and devise an action plan after consulting with senior police officials.
Shabana Shaikh, the complainant, insists that the developers had no right to sell, lease, or mortgage properties without the knowledge and consent of the property owners. She desires to have her property free from any legal encumbrances, asserting that she had obtained a home loan from the bank and repaid it with interest, rendering the auction proceedings illegal.
Contrasting viewpoints emerge in this case, with the directors claiming that the properties were extended as collateral security and not mortgaged, while the buyers argue that they were unaware of any mortgages and had obtained home loans without any complications. The main contention lies in establishing the veracity of the directors' claims regarding the collateral security and the consent of the property owners.
It is essential for the EOW to thoroughly investigate the matter, gathering evidence from both parties involved, examining property documents, and verifying the loan agreements. The involvement of an arbitrator appointed by the Delhi High Court indicates that the dispute has already entered a legal realm, further underscoring the need for a comprehensive investigation to uncover the truth.
Overall, this case raises significant concerns about the transparency and legality of loan procedures and the protection of property rights. The contrasting statements by the directors and the property owners warrant a meticulous examination of the evidence and a fair resolution to ensure justice for all parties involved.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
