Read all Construction & Infrastructure Industry News direct on your facebook page

Login | Register
Login (Email):
Remember Me Forgot Password 
New Register   
Home > News > Dlf Says Hyderabad Realtor Cheated It Of Rs 280 Cr

DLF says Hyderabad realtor cheated it of Rs 280 cr

Infrawindow News Bureau




Mar. 01, 2012, 10:45 AM

DLFDLF, the real estate major, said it has been taken for a ride by Hyderabad realtor Gowri Shankar Gupta of the GSG Group, which could lead to a loss of about Rs280 crore, reports DNA.

According to the report, in a complaint filed by Suresh Krishna, an official of DLF Universal (formerly known as DLF Retail Developers), with the detective department of the Central Crime Station in Hyderabad, the company has informed that Gupta along with his associates have deliberately cheated DLF to the tune of Rs280 crore by inducing DLF to invest in some of the real estate development projects taken up by the GSG Group companies.

“All the accused have entered into a criminal conspiracy and by misrepresenting and inducing the complainant to invest/part with huge sums of its money, have defrauded and cheated the complainant company (DLF), knowing fully well and with the intention that the money shall not be returned to the complainant company.

Consequently, the accused persons have caused wrongful and deliberate losses to the complainant company and corresponding unlawful and wrongful gains to themselves and are liable to be punished for committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code,” the company said in its FIR.

Interestingly, DLF is said to have continued paying significant amounts despite the GSG Group failing in keeping up with commitments.

The modus operandi, as explained by the DLF official in his complaint, was that DLF had entered into business association with GSG in 2006 for developing various parcels of land at prominent locations in Hyderabad and Mumbai.

The accused had induced DLF to pay out huge amounts as advances for completing the development. However, the promised works were never completed and the monies that were paid out too were never returned.

“To induce and develop confidence, the accused persons offered to immediately enter into MoU against payment of advances, returnable on default. However, before the amount became refundable in one project, the accused would rush to present  or offer another project and offer to enter into an MoU immediately against payment of further advance with more lucrative terms, only to commit deceit and misappropriate the advance money,” DLF said.

Post a Comment




Security Code:

Not readable? Change text.

Email :