Nation Current Affairs 12 Jul 2021 Supreme Court okays ...

Supreme Court okays Sec. 420 on Jayabheri Group

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | DC CORRESPONDENT
Published Jul 13, 2021, 3:07 am IST
Updated Jul 13, 2021, 7:17 am IST
Jayabheri had started the Silicon County, Jayabheri Silicon Towers and Club Jayabheri, a mixed development project in six acres
The Supreme Court has declined the plea of Telugu Desam MP and actor Maganti Murali Mohan, promoter of Jayabheri Group, and his relative Ram Mohan Maganti, to set aside the orders of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court against them. (PTI)
 The Supreme Court has declined the plea of Telugu Desam MP and actor Maganti Murali Mohan, promoter of Jayabheri Group, and his relative Ram Mohan Maganti, to set aside the orders of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court against them. (PTI)

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court has declined the plea of Telugu Desam MP and actor Maganti Murali Mohan, promoter of Jayabheri Group, and his relative Ram Mohan Maganti, to set aside the orders of erstwhile Hyderabad High Court against them in relation to sale of apartments in the Jayabheri Silicon Valley.

The HC had directed the trial court at Miyapur to frame charges against them and start trial for breach of trust and cheating.

 

Jayabheri had started the Silicon County, Jayabheri Silicon Towers and Club Jayabheri, a mixed development project in six acres around the rear 2000.

Allegations against Jayabheri Constructions and its promoters and partners are that they had violated the norms prescribed by HUDA to leave a set back of 14 metres to Silicon County. But some part of this was used for a drive-way for the IT Towers and Club Silicon.

On the other side of the Silicon County, the driveway was shown as 24 feet as per agreement, but practically it was only 16 feet.

 

The second accusation is that though total land set apart by the accused for Jayabheri Silicon County was 18,521 sq yds, the actual existing area is only 16,568 sq yds and thereby the flat owners have lost 1953 sq yds. The accused have allegedly usurped this.

The third allegation was about the common maintenance charges of the building complex.

Complaints were made against the developers and promoters in 2008 before the Madhapur court, the FIR was registered and chargesheet submitted under Sections 406, 420 IPC read with several sections of the AP Apartments (promotion of constructions and ownership) Act.

 

Challenging it, Murali Mohan and others filed a discharge petition before the trial magistrate court of Cyberabad, Kukatpally, located at Miyapur. The trial court discharged them. Challenging it, the complainants approached Hyderabad High Court in 2014, which then directed the trial court to continue the trial against the promoters and developers.

Challenging it, Murali Mohan and two others approached the apex court, which rejected their plea two days ago.

...
Location: India, Telangana, Hyderabad




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
-->