New Delhi, June 14: A Delhi court on Tuesday ordered initiation of proceedings against real estate major Unitech Ltd and its top bosses in a case of alleged cheating lodged by an investor for not giving him possession of a flat booked in 2006 in Greater Noida. Also Read - Nirbhaya Case: After Delhi Court, Now NHRC Dismisses Plea Seeking Stay on Execution of Convicts

The court has ordered initiation of proceedings against Unitech Ltd, its chairman Ramesh Chandra, Managing Directors Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra and four other directors who are named as accused in the complaint. Also Read - Court Directs Delhi Police to File Status Report on Probe Into Jamia Millia Islamia Violence

The complaint was filed by a Gurgaon resident Paramvir Singh Narang who alleged that he had booked a flat in Unitech Cascades at Greater Noida in 2006 for which he had paid a total sale consideration of Rs. 39,07,582.(ALSO READ:No FIR against Salman Khan, Shah Rukh Khan: Delhi court dismisses complaint against actors for ‘hurting religious sentiments’). Also Read - Hope Convicts Will be Executed on March 3, Says Nirbhaya’s Mother as Court Issues Death Warrant

The possession of apartment was handed over to him in the fourth quarter of 2008 but the company failed to abide by its agreement, following which he lodged a complaint.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sandeep Yadav passed the order against the accused for the alleged offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) saying they had ‘guilty intention to cheat the petitioner from the beginning’.

“Since respondents after receiving total agreement payment of Rs 39.07 lakh neither offered possession of apartment nor refunded the amount with simple interest at 10 percent per annum, it can be safely concluded that they were having guilty intention to cheat the petitioner from the very beginning of transaction,” the court said in its order.

“Even the legal notice issued by complainant to accused persons was not replied. Hence, Section 420 of the IPC gets attracted to the facts of present case,” the judge said.