Unitech top bosses face tough questions from court

Real estate major Unitech's top bosses today faced tough questions from a Delhi court, which also asked them by when they would settle the pending dues of "hundreds" of other investors.
The court also pulled up the group's chairman Ramesh Chandra, Managing Directors Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra and Director Minoti Bahri for not fulfilling the assurance given to the investors.
"You gave assurances and then ran away. You don't act till the time a situation of sending you to jail arises. What about the money of hundreds of others (investors)? When will that be settled," Additional Sessions Judge Vimal Kumar Yadav asked.

The court's remarks came when the top officials, who appeared before it on expiry of three-day interim bail in a cheating case, told the court that they have settled the issue with complainants who wished to withdraw the complaint.
The judge then asked the officials and the complainants to move proper application in this regard before the concerned magisterial court.
The application was then filed before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Rao who allowed the two investors, Sanjay Kalra and Devesh Wadhwa, to withdraw their complaint of alleged cheating after they informed that their dues have been cleared by the company.

The group's top bosses were sent to 14-day judicial custody in the case on January 11 by the trial court, but they succeeded in getting three-day interim bail on the same day from the sessions court after giving an undertaking that they will settle all pending dues to the complainants.

Despite managing to get the interim bail, the officials had to spend a night in Tihar Jail after they failed to get the release warrant from the court on time.
The complainants had claimed to have booked a property in Habitat Apartments in Greater Noida developed by Unitech Ltd but were not given possession.

Despite the court's earlier order, Unitech has not refunded them the complete payment, they had alleged.
The company officials had said that due to financial constraints and circumstances beyond their control, they were not able to make the payment to the complainants.