You are on page 1of 100



Sec on I UHRF Introduc on 3

Sec on II About UHRF Intensive Research 3-4

Sec on III About various representa on sent to various authori es 5-6

Sec on IV Illegali es in construc on 7 - 12

Sec on V Con nuous fire tragedies in India 13 - 29

Sec on VI Complete Case Study

1. About the Project Palais Royale 30

2. Background of the Promoters/Group 31 - 40

3. All Illegali es in the project Palais Roayle

i. First give norms about refuge area and fire safety 41- 42

ii. Second, illegali es about refuge area 43 - 45

iii. Illegali es about Public Parking Lot 46 - 48

iv. Illegali es as per Speaking Order dated 12.09.2013 of Mr. Sita Ram Kunte 49 - 52

v. All li ga on in respect of illegali es in the project 53 - 54

vi. Frees hold and lease hold land chart and RERA website 55

vii. No Compounding of Project 56

4. Financial frauds and illegali es by the promoters of SRUIL 57 - 60

5. Strategic planning of Promoters 61 - 77

6 Nexus of SRUIL with MCGM 78 - 79

7 Majority of flats buyer is investors 80

Sec on VI Ques ons needed to be solved by Media 81 - 82

8 Various Press Releases 83 - 98

We, United Human Rights Federation (hereinafter UHRF), are a society registered under the
provisions of The Societies Registration Act, 1860. UHRF is a non-political and non-sectarian
national organization devoted to promote strengthen and preserve democratic system bereft of
favoritism, nepotism and corruption in the country and to protect rights, interest and dignity of
common people. Since its formation, UHRF is engaged in taking up various common problems of
the people for effective redressal and has been relentlessly engaged in safeguarding public

The UHRF has been doing research for ensuring strict

financial discipline in the public and corporate sectors
and while doing so, it came across various irregularities
& illegalities in some of the real estate developments
and construction companies whereby they often twist
and grossly violates the rules by unlawful planning and
construction of additional / unauthorized area beyond
of their entitlement.

To make the gravity of the current situation and UHRF's

serious concern more understandable over multiple
painful incidents around the country with countless life
loss due to the illegal construction and corruption,
United Human Rights Federation eagerly wish to
represent in detail about it through its research
document and seek a fruitful, strict punishments and
action against the violators through implementing the
laws in such a way that no one ever dare to violate the

The UHRF humbly submit that the requisite laws, bye-

laws and policies have been framed by the
government(s) time to time. The builders though have
started following the norms, however, only with the
sole motive to get utilized the premises at their whims
and fancies. They sell or give on lease the areas meant
for Basement, Car Parking, Balconies, Terrace,
Verandas, Garden, Lobby(ies) and Lounges etc. which
in no way are allocated for sale or given on lease or for
any commercial activity. These unauthorized
occupancies are very risky & dangerous for the
inhabitants and public who visits such premises.

It is stated that the modernization through urbanization in India is opening up new avenues of
opportunities in real estate using high rise buildings, shopping malls, multiplexes, IT and
pharmaceutical hubs etc. No doubt modernization and urbanization in India has become a common
feature, still it has its own consequential threats. The illegal construction and misuse within a given
space may trigger some alarming conditions, which the builders and construction companies have
been ignoring since long back.
The builders / contractors by keeping safety measures at bay, sells these areas to earn profit at the
cost of human lives. Although few civic authorities are having some kind of auditing and / or
monitoring mechanism, however they indifferently use to overlook the same in the absence of
strict enforceable regulations and constant vigilance.

In furtherance, against the financial irregularities of S.Kumars Group of Companies and its real
estate construction arm Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL), the developers of 'Palais
Royale' project, the UHRF had filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India being Writ Petition No. 915 of 2014 against various regulatory, supervisory & sanctioning
authorities including the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC/MCGM).

1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 07.11.2014 after
hearing the Applicant/ Petitioner UHRF on various issues
raised in the PIL, passed an order permitting/ directing the
UHRF to – “....... approach the appropriate Forums by
making appropriate application(s)/ representations for
appropriate relief/ reliefs”.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2014 of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, UHRF approached to several authorities
including The Hon'ble President of India, the Hon'ble Prime
Minister of India, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra
and to the Central as well as the State Urban Development
Ministers. The UHRF also approached to various regulatory
& supervisory authorities like Municipal Commissioner,
MCGM, Anti Corruption Bureau, CBI, Economic Offences
Wing etc against the frauds, cheating and financial scams
and about the various irregularities and unauthorized
constructions in the project 'Palais Royale'. In the said
representations/complains, UHRF has requested the
concerned authorities to initiate enquiries and
investigations for the illegal activities of SKumars Group of
Companies and specifically their real estate arm M/s Shree
Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.

There is nothing worse than witnessing your worst

nightmare turning into a horrific reality

To ensure safety of innocent citizens of the country from any

fire tragedy the UHRF has already begun its way to
successfully attain it's vision of having a “Fire Safe Nation”
and on that note the UHRF has already explained its concern
over the current situation of violation of fire safety norms in
multiple platforms. It has expressed and conveyed its
concern to His Excellency, The President of India dated
September 20, 2017.

Along with His Excellency President of India, the

representation has also been delivered to more than 700
dignitaries such as the Hon'ble Vice President of India, the
Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, The Hon'ble Chief Justice
and all the judges of Supreme Court of India, all the Hon'ble
Chief Justices of High Courts of India, all the Hon'ble

Governors of States & Union Territories,
all the Hon'ble Chief Ministers, the
Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha, all the
Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of
States, Government of India, the
Cabinet Secretary, Government of India,
all the Secretaries of Govt. of India, all
Commissioner of Police, and many more
for the kind perusal and to bring this
grave matter under the kind attention of
the authorities. The UHRF has also
sought from all of them for their kind
suggestion, guidance and valuable time
to put an end to the ongoing crime in
High – Rise construction methodology.

It has also came to know to the UHRF that Representation / Complaint against the frauds and
illegalities of M/s Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd for denying just & lawful claims to its innocent
and bonafide investors has been conveyed to more than 27 government authorities, civic bodies,
private entities & dignitaries which is discussed in the brochure in detail. The Authorities are such as
Vice President, New Delhi, Prime Minister of India, New Delhi, Hon'ble Minister for Finance, New
Delhi, Hon'ble Minister for Home Affairs, New Delhi, Minister for Urban Development, New Delhi,
Chief Minister of Maharashtra (as Maharashtra Government representing in scheme of BIFR),
Urban Development Minister of Maharashtra, Secretary, Urban Development, Maharashtra, The
Chairman/Managing Director of IDBI Bank (as Operating Agency in scheme of BIFR), The
Chairman/Managing Director of Central Bank of India (as payment made by the applicant in scheme
of BIFR), The Chairman/Managing Director of Canara Bank (as payment made by the applicant in
scheme of BIFR), The Chairman/Managing Director of UCO Bank (as payment made by the applicant
in scheme of BIFR), The Chairman/Managing Director of Bank of Baroda (as lead banker in
rehabilitation scheme of BIFR and payment made by the applicant), The Commissioner MCGM (as
representing State of Maharashtra), The Commissioner of Police, New Delhi (for taking necessary
action), The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai (for taking necessary action), The ACP, Economic
Offences Wing, Mumbai, Dy. ACP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, The Senior Inspector, PS Worli,
Mumbai , The Director CBI ((for taking necessary action and investigation), Chairman, RERA
(Highest Authority of Real Estate Project), Shri Alok Shankar Lal Kasliwal (being family member and
partner of S.K. Group of Companies), Shri Ambuj Abhay Kasliwal (being family member and Ex-
Director of SRUIL), Shri Warij Abhay Kasliwal (being family member and Ex-Director of SRUIL), Janhit
Manch (pursing against irregularities and fraud by SRUIL), M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure
Limited (earlier known as Shree Ram Mills Limited (SML), M/s S.Kumars Finance & Investment Ltd.
(now renamed as M/s.

Landmarc Leisure Corporation Ltd.) (as payment made to them), M/s S.Kumars Tyre Manufacturing
Co. Ltd. (as payment made to them) & M/s CVIL Infra Limited, Mumbai.

Through rigorous research done by UHRF, the on-going violation committed by different
corporate builders in the real estate project came right out of the blue. All these violations are
just not only limited in a specific criteria, it is wide spreaded around all real estate sectors
whether it is in Nursing Home, Hospitals, Resorts, Airports or Schools, Colleges, Universities etc.
The ongoing violation in multiple areas like misusing parking areas, basement, podium etc. &
most importantly misuse of Refuge Areas are continuously leading the increasing number of
unintentional accidents in all metro cities.

I Alarming & Worst Conditions at Multi specialty Hospitals & Nursing Homes

Ÿ Are Multispecialty Hospitals & Nursing Homes Safe?

India, since its independence though had seen considerable development in healthcare sector
with mushrooming of multispecialty hospitals in major cities; still it lags behind to
complement the needs of the day. Almost 13,000 well-equipped hospitals might not be
sufficient for a country which is second most populous after China. Though, the development
is still being done in this sector to provide hi-tech medical service to masses in as many ways as
possible, still there is something that raises security concerns.

Ÿ Security concerns in Multi specialty

During breakout of fire in a hospital having

sprinklers-studded facility isn't sufficient.
Such urgent conditions need a complete or
partial building evacuation. But, when a
hospital has multilevel occupied floors, a lot
of questions and concerns pop out pointing
towards the difficulty of evacuating
hundreds or perhaps thousands of patients
at a time.

Urgent Evacuation Facility Needed in a

Multispecialty Hospitals

If there is a need of evacuation, the first way

that comes in mind is the stairways. Unless
smashed by fire or made unsustainable by
the smoke, the interior stairway of the
hospital tends to be the suitable exit. But,
the space, which should be used as interior
stairways, is being used for commercial
purposes by constructing ancillary medical
facilities and so on. A full-fledge operation
theatre constructed in basement, illegal
medical equipment stores, kitchens etc. in
the basement or any other space, creates
hurdle in urgent evacuation plans in case of
an emergency.

II The illegal Constructions and Safety III Un-authorized Constructions at Airports
Issues in Luxury Hotels & Resorts
During the urbanization or development of
Travel and tourism in India is perhaps the most Indian airports, authorities overlook certain
flourishing sector with demand growing at safety measures considering them as they
10.1% per annum. This sector foresees are of no harm or trifling. This puts
tremendous growth opportunities and thousands of traveller's life in jeopardy.
includes cultural, heritage, medical, sports as
The airports which in general terms should
well as medical tourism. To their worsening,
have opened lobbies, they have been
many five star hotels are unaware of these
cove re d i l l e g i t i m ate l y a n d w i t h o u t
small but prevalent issues, and over the last
considering the law have been roofed with
couple of years, major unauthorized
fibre sheets, soft glasses and other materials
constructions have been done jeopardizing
which are prone to fire.
the life of the visitors and guests. The space
where there should be an exit gateway, has The occupiers of the Airports have not just
been turned into a commercial place or a part covered the lobbies but they have covered
of the amenity center obstructing the required other built-up open spaces too. Insufficient
exist plan during an emergency. Government exit gateways, doors or windows within the
has handed out certain guidelines for hotels premises of an airport creates major safety
and resorts to address their Fire safety issues, threats.
however hardly anyone pays attention to. The
only thing that one keeps in mind is how to
spin money out of this million-dollar industry.



IV Hazardous Constructions at Schools, Colleges & Universities

The illegal constructions in schools, schools are also latest victims of illegal
colleges and universities may sound constructions. Playing sections are
bizarre, but it's the bitter truth in constructed in the basements which are
today's money-minded world. The meant to be unclog ged and opened.
schools, colleges and other Playgrounds are the most affected areas,
educational institutes or university which are either occupied for kids amusement
compounds, which are meant to be park or turned into a game zone. This
freed from any obstructions, are being haphazard, unlawful occupancy of nursery
used as space to run shops, stationery / schools in no way is appropriate as it may put
stores, uniform shops and other innocent kids' life in danger.
purposes. In corridors, haphazard
occupancy can be seen in the form of a
cafeteria or a canteen. School /
University food service typically
involves folding tables that are
positioned and swapped throughout
the day. The indoor gyms running
within the complex of university /
school basement are also an example
of unlawful occupancy. In fact,
underground godowns or store rooms
are quite common which are of course
unethical constructions. Nursery

V Violation of Fire Norms in High Ÿ Misuse of Parking Area, Basement, Podium

Rise Buildings etc.

Now- a- days the builders are not providing

A shopping-mall / multiplexes / high rise
free and adequate parking space in their
buildings / public parking lots are usually a
commercial or residential complexes. The
jam-packed place. It can play havoc if a rumor
Bombay High Court's recent order
is spread out in these shopping malls during a
stipulates that parking space cannot be
massive gathering. The shops or retail outlets
sold. Similarly, the civic Development
in all commercial buildings leave no stone
Control Rules have in clear terms specified
unturned to lure their customers with dazzling
that basements are meant for parking
light shows, perfect lighting systems and soon.
purpose only. The misuse of basement
Stressing on fire safety is of utmost
areas cannot be allowed and has been
importance as a residential or commercial
condemned in the manner - "As per the
high-rise building isn't one building, but an
development control rules, while giving
interlocked building having multiple store,
permission for construction of a building
objects and resources inside out. In case of fire
does not give sanction for use of basements
breaking out at any shopping center or mall
for residential or commercial purposes. The
may cause devastating effects killing many
use of basements is allowed only as store,
people and fuming out resources worth
godown and a safe deposit vault.”
thousands of Crores.

However, the Builders / Developers are
continuing to misuse and sell basement /
parking / podium areas to the customers for
commercial uses.

Parking Lots (Areas) in High Rise Buildings are

also not spared from corruption & illegal

In high rise buildings / shopping mall /

multiplexes and all types of commercial and
residential buildings

Ÿ Basements are allowed for car parking only

but 50% of the basement is being used for
different commercial and residential

Ÿ Balconies, open spaces & lounges are being

converted into food courts, restaurants,
coffee shops etc.

Ÿ Terraces are being used as multi-cuisine

restaurants, bars, discotheque & galleria.

Ÿ The side portion of stairs cases is illegally

being used as go down or to store scrap.

Ÿ Most of the commercial buildings are not

e q u i p p e d w i t h p ro p e r f i r e f i g h t i n g

Ÿ In case of any untoward incident, people

can't get open and unhindered access to
their safety.

Con nuous & Unending Fire Tragedies in India

India has seen many tragic fire incidents that

claimed innocent lives mainly due to lack of safety
measures & sloppiness of the administra on
which has lead to human errors and greediness to
spin as much money as one can. This shows how
just for the sake of money one's life can be
compromised and even can push so many lives
towards sufferings and deaths. A er a thorough
meta-analy c research, the UHRF has gathered in
detailed number of informa on concerning
unauthorized construc ons & fire safety in recent
mes and fallout of the irregular construc ons. A
number of major fire incidents that took place
resulted in worst situa on leaving a dras c &
painful impact over the people. Major among such
Fire Tragedies are – Fire at Grand Hotel in Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi on January 27, 2008 and Uphaar
Cinema Fire also at New Delhi on June 13, 1997
killing 59 people. Some major fire tragedies in
India between 1995 to 2017 and its impact on
people has been enumerated by the applicant in
accompanying Informa on Brochure.

The Times of India dated 05.07.2014 has reported

that at least 1 Lakh buildings lacks fire safety
measures in Bengaluru. This news came to the
knowledge of public only a er a major incident
occurred in the Carlton Tower, Bengaluru. It is just
a p of the ice berg, there may be many more
buildings lacking fire safety. In the incident of
Carlton Towers, 9 people lost their lives when it
went up in flames and it was proved that Almas
Centre where a jewellery showroom was gu ed
was not the only building to have discarded fire
safety norms there are many like it.

There are lots of incidents of fire tragedies Though the strong and commi ed
reported frequently and cau oning the determina on of UHRF and delibera on of
authori es. S ll many buildings are being UHRF's grave concern toward mul ple
constructed unauthorizedly in Mumbai, Pune, pla orm but due to lack of coopera on &
Thane, Delhi & NCR region without adhering an cipa on from all government, non-
to the safety regula ons/norms. The government, private sector on these fire
developers in these metropolis are viola ng safety issues, negligence in inspec on and not
the Na onal Building Code, 2005 and their taking strict ac ons against the viola on
respec ve applicable Building Development commi ed by the promoters, builders,
Acts / Regula ons. Surprisingly, there is no developers etc., we had to witness the horrific
effort of constant monitoring of the fire tragedy of Kamala Mills Fire leading to
construc on ac vi es by the regula ng death of more than 14 people and injuring
agencies which is more alarming and more than 19.
dangerous for the public.


The very recent horrific roof top pub fire accident in Mumbai at ' 1 above' around 12.30 a.m. on
December 29, 2017 causing death to at least 14 innocent lives and leaving 21 people injured as
per report ll now have shook the people of the country in complete grave and sadness in a
massive way. S ll the govt. authori es, media, poli cians, businessmen are going to ignore the
extreme need of fire safety audit in India via keeping their mouth shut or The rules and
regula on regarding fire safety norms along with extreme need of Fire Safety Audit would be

The massacre happened with Kamala Mills Fire not just point the finger to the government
authori es towards negligence of Fire Safety arrangement and Audit nut also reveals the fact that
most of the conven on centers are either illegally built or con nuing their business in mul ple
irregular way.



Khushbu Mehta 28
Both of them were at the restaurant to celebrate Miss.
1 Khusbhu Mehta's birthday. But died because of
suffoca on.
Kinjal Shah 21

2 Vishwa Lalani 23 Two US based brothers died along with their aunt in
the accident. They have been found dead in the
Dhairya Lalani 26 washroom


3 Kavita Dharani 36 Both of them died in the toilet due to suffoca on.

Tejal Gandhi 36

4 Manisha Shah 49 All the three women were not only best friends but
also are rela ves from a single family who were died
Shefali Doshi 46 altogether because of being present at the restaurant
to have dinner.
Parul Ladkawala 49

5 Prachi Khetani 31 Recently flown from US Prachi Khetani died in the

accident due to suffoca on in the washroom with the
last words to her friend via phone “"I am in the
bathroom... I will come out in five minutes. I am fine,
don't worry,"

6 Pri Rajgira 41 She has died also due to suffoca on leaving her
husband alone who is already moaning for the death of
his mother just 15 days ago. Now the death of his wife
and mother in just 15 days completely broke him

7 Yasha Thakkar 22 She has especially came to Mumbai for the very first
me from Gujarat to celebrate the upcoming New
Year with many excitements and plans led her to tragic
death due to suffoca on in the accident.

8 Jeet 49 Death occurred due to suffoca on

While pursuing our research it has came under the observation that, as per the news published in on December 29, 2017, publishing as “Kamala Mills fire: They blew the whistle but civic
body ignored them”, Mangesh Kasalkar, an MNS worker, and RTI activist Iyas Khan had repeatedly
warned the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation about the illegal extensions and violations by 1
Above, a rooftop pub inside the labyrinthine Kamala Mills in Mumbai's Lower Parel, where 14
people where died in a fire on Thursday night, but nothing was done.
Both these activists had repeatedly brought the illegalities of several such pubs and rooftop
restaurants in Kamala Mills and the neighbouring Raghuvanshi Mills to the notice of the civic
Both Kasalkar and Khan contended that precious lives could have been saved had the local
municipal authorities paid attention to their repeated complaints.
UHRF has also time and again through letters and representations made its endeavours to shake the
conscience of the local bodies and responsible authorities in regard to ill mannered fire safety
arrangements the utter failure of the authorities, they let the accidents occur in highly populated
areas of the metro cities.



Sense of Awaking in Government Authori es a er many valuable and innocent lives are Lost

Over 100 BMC officials face enquiry,

The Times of India City Jan 1, 2018
ac on

Crackdown a er Mumbai fire: Illegal

The Times of India City Dec 30, 2017 structures at 314 sites demolished, 7
hotels sealed

Fire dept., BMC probe fire cause,

The Hindu Dec 31, 2017 poli cos make rounds of site

Kamala Mills fire brings BMC policy under

The Times of India City Dec 31, 2017 lens

The Times of India City Dec 31, 2017 Restaurants can't use terrace: NDMC

Mumbai inferno prompts safety

The Times of India City Dec 31, 2017
inspec ons at Delhi markets

Day a er, demoli on drive rolls

The Telegraph Dec 31, 2017 Lookout no ces against pub owners,
safety glare on eateries across Mumbai


Absolute outrage coming upon the authori es from common people

Mumbai fire: Complaint filed against

India Today Dec 30, 2017
civic, excise officials, cops seeking ac on

'Roo op circular sought to legalize eatery

The Times of India City Dec 31, 2017 viola ons'

Kamala Mills fire: Facing public outrage, Dec 30, 2017 municipal officials go on a demoli on
spree in Mumbai

OPINION | Kamala Mills' Fire Reminds

News 18 Dec 29, 2017 Me of Bengaluru Carlton Horror Which
Claimed My Son

Corrup on in government ge ng exposed in front of the whole world

Only 400 of 5,000 Delhi eateries have got

The Times of India City Dec 30, 2017
fire safety permit

Kamala Mills fire: Another fire in

The Indian Express Dec 31, 2017 Mumbai, 10 days, 23 km, a li le apart

Fire NOC to 1Above five days before

The Times of India City Dec 31, 2017 blaze gets 5 suspended

Mumbai: What 2018 holds for BMC and

The Free Press Journal Jan 1, 2018 its babus



The UHRF has identefied some major fire tragedies in India between 1995 to
2017 as under :


As while persuing our extensive research on fire safety issues in India, we have encountered with the
news of unsafe condi on of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Parliament, the symbol of democracy,
which shocked us and made us realize that the current on going situa on and no regula on on fire
safety arrangement in the na on.

The news ar cles like “CIC ques ons fire-safety of SC and Parliament Buildings ” published in “LIVE
LAW” on November 27, 2014 or the informa on published in the “Times of India” on November 27,
2014 sta ng “No fire safety cer ficates for Parliament, SC in 10 years ” made us extremely concern
over the safety and security of all officials, workers etc. working in these monumental buildings.

The UHRF has very humbly submi ed the representa on on the above men oned issue detailing the
fire safety concern of these monumental building men oning the grave concern in the le er to the
Hon’ble speaker of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha , the Chief Jus ce of Supreme Court .
Similarly the alarming condi on of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and parliament house regarding the
fire safety issue has been conveyed to His excellency the Hon’ble president of India and the Hon’ble
Prime Minister of India vide dated September 22, 2017

To validate the originality of the above men oned news ar cles, UHRF has sought to Central
Informa on Commission (CIC) the document related to it. In response, The CIC had provided 3
documents detailing and suppor ng the validity of the news report. It was shown that, One
appellant named Shri Rohit Sabharwal filed RTI applica on dated 29.08.2013 for the cer fied
copies of latest fire safety cer ficate of these two important buildings. The informa on acquired
from the Central Informa on Commission (CIC), “astonishing aspects such as no informa on was
available whether any ac on was for over decade about compliance of fire safety norms which
were quite essen al” was revealed. It was also observed that last survey of fire safety arrangement
conducted by Delhi Fire Service on 13.09.2004.

The Central Informa on commission further directs “the responded public authori es especially
the head of the department, to take a serious note of fire safety lapses in the buildings, housing
Supreme Court and Parliament and direct to appraise the authori es in legislature and judiciary
about necessity and importance of taking the measures recommended by them.”

Though all the above men oned fire tragedies will be remembered as painful memories of the
na on but the fire tragedy which happen at Mantralaya, Mumbai on June 21, 2012 and at Uphaar
cinema Delhi on June 13, 1997 leading to huge loss of lives will always stay as the symbol of
sorrow at such a high level buildings. The incidents indicates the utmost emergency of taking fire
protec on management on priority.

The very recent fire accident at the Prime Minister’s Office on October 17, 2017 established the
alarming situa on and our grave concern over the fire safety arrangement & the condi on in India.
The detailed report stated in “ The Indian Express” on October 17, 2017 as “Fire breaks out at PMO
early this morning, no injuries” is one of many newspapers where the report was published.

As the father of our Na on explained “Be the change that you wish to see in the world”, It is the
urgent need of the hour for the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Parliament House to follow the
footstsep of that wise thought and take the ma er as the most serious issue to save million of lives
of the country for now and many years to come.

Major Fire Tragedies in all around the World – A Chronological View

A number of major fire incidents that took place in the world have resulted in worst situa on
leaving a dras c & painful impact over the people. The UHRF has iden fied some very recent
major fire tragedies in the world as under :

It is high me that we should emphasize and give importance to the proverb as it goes
“PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE”. Though mul ple ac ons are taken by the government a er
the loss of lives and upon complete lash out of public in India but with it neither any of those
innocent lost souls are going to come back nor the grave, sadness of all the family members and
their unstoppable tears be stopped or removed.





There are many cases where fire safety norms are not complied with which may result in disaster for
the occupants. One such example is that of a High Rise Residen al Building, Palais Royale in Worli
Mumbai where fire safety norms are blatantly flouted by developers for commercial gains. Palais
Royale is a skyscraper being built at Worli Naka, Lower Parel, Mumbai. The project is on the land of
Shree Ram Mills Limited ( now re-named as Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. ), the Developers is
developing the Palais Royale building and a public parking scheme of the development control
regula on, 1991.

General Informa on:

Status: Under Construc on
Type: Residen al
Loca on: Worli Naka, Lower Parel, Mumbai, India
Construc on started: 2008
Es mated comple on: 2018/2021
Cost: INR 3,000 Cr.
Height : 395 meters (1,296 .)

Technical Details
Proposed floor count: 72 (construc on of 56
Floors completed)
Floor area: 310,000 m² (3.3 × 10⁶ sq. .)
Li s/Elevators: 12

Design and construc on

Architect: Tala Panthaky & Associates
Developer: Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure
Main Contractor: Raghuveer Urban
Construc ons


Shree Ram Urban

Infrastructure Ltd.
Company Informa on

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (SRUIL) entered the Real Estate business by launching the
flagship project of “Palais Royale”, prior to that the Company was one of the big players in tex les
known as Shree Ram Mills Limited. The Company had carried out the business of manufacturing of
co on tex les and synthe c fabrics.

The name of the Company was changed from Shree Ram Mills Limited to “Shree Ram Urban
Infrastructure Limited” in the year 2007 and is carrying the ac vi es of tex les trading and
construc on.

Name Designa on
Mr. S. S. Kasliwal Chairman
Mr. Vikas S. Kasliwal Vice-Chairman & CEO
Mr. Lalit Mohan Director
Mr. S.P.Banerjee Director
Mrs. Dhvani Kaul Director
Mr. S. K. Luharuka Whole-Time Director
Mr. N. K. Sethi Director
Mr. N.K. Modani Sr. President (Finance) & CFO
Mr. R.N. Jha Director
Mr. Sa sh Kumar Prajapa CS & Compliance Officer

Name Designa on
Mr. Lalit Mohan Chairman
Mr. S. P. Banerjee Member
Mr. S. K. Luharuka Member


Name Designa on
Mr. N.K.Sethi Chairman
Mr. S. P. Banerjee Member
Mr. Lalit Mohan Member


Name Designa on
Mr. Lalit Mohan Chairman
Mr. S.K.Luharuka Member
Mr. N.K.Sethi Member

Our upcoming residen al project on iconic green building “Palais Royale” is located at Worli.
“Palais Royale” is a LEED pla num pre-cer fied building and has also recently received a 5
Palm ra ng from CETEC in Australia. SRUIL is taking significant efforts to ensure that we do
our bit in crea ng "green" sustainable structures, and we are confident that in mes to come,
our thrust on the eco-friendly sector will pay rich dividends in terms of premium pricing and
increased market demand. With the comple on of Palais Royale, SRUIL is expected to be
amongst the top players in the Real Estate & Construc on industry.

M/s SRUIL is the owner of land admeasuring 67,785.50 sq. meters equivalent to 81,041.33 sq. yds.
situated at Shree Ram Mills Premises, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013,
Some me in the year 1987, the said Shree Ram Mills Ltd / SRUIL became a Sick Industrial
Company and filed a Reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruc on,
(hereina er referred to as “BIFR”) and applied for reliefs as prayed for therein.

Scheme Sanc oned by BIFR: In terms of the scheme sanc oned by the BIFR on 31.10.1991, SRUIL
was permi ed to sell the surplus Floor Space Index (“FSI”) in the Mill Compound to the extent of
1,20,000 Sq. . The es mated price which the said FSI was pegged at around Rs. 21 crores before
BIFR, as well as represented to the AAIFR, secured and unsecured creditors debenture holders, etc.

Asset Sale Commi ee: The AAIFR cons tuted an Asset Sale Commi ee consis ng of-
i) IDBI – As Opera ng Agency;
ii) AAIFR;
iii) Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra;
iv) Secretary Tex le, Government of Maharashtra;
v) Two Promoter Directors of Shree Ram Mills Ltd;
vi) Municipal Corpora on of Greater Bombay, represented through
State of Maharashtra;
vii) Labour Union of Shree Ram Mills Ltd and
viiI) an Independent Nominee

for the sale of 1,20,000 sq. . FSI to the
prospec ve buyers. The BMC was represented
through Govt. of Maharashtra. The said Assets
Sale Commi ee approved the sale of 1,20,000
sq. . FSI to the Applicant / UPPL for a total
considera on of Rs. 21.60 cr.

Ÿ The said sale of 1,20,000 sq. FSI for the

Residen al Project of was sanc oned by
the AAIFR vide its order dated 11.10.1994.
In the said order it was men oned that “as
per revised DC Rules, company has a
surplus FSI of 1.20 lakhs sq. . at Worli
Bombay, the present value of which,
would be approx Rs. 21 crores.”

Ÿ Agreements dated 27.04.1994,

18.07.1994 and 09.11.1994 executed
between the U lity Premises Pvt. Ltd.
(UPPL), M/s. Cogent Ventures India Ltd.
(CVIL) and the SRUIL for purchase of 1.20
Lacs Sq. Ft. of FSI on the land situated at
Shree Ram Mills, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 on an area
admeasuring 4848.1 sq mtrs. (i.e part of
the said land) against of which the
Applicant made a payment of Rs. 25.64
crores whereas the total considera on
amount as agreed to be paid was Rs.
21.60 crores. However, an excess amount
of Rs.4.04 crores was paid in this regard.

Ÿ The said payments were made directly to

the Secured creditors of SRUIL i.e. Banks,
Financial Ins tu ons and also to the
MCGM. UPPL and CVIL were induced and
forced by SRUIL to pay the said excess sum
causing wrongful loss to the Applicant

Ÿ Since there was some difficulty in ge ng

sanc on of 1,20,000 sq. FSI on the plot

of land allocated for joint development
under the agreement dated 27.04.1994,
another agreement was entered into by and
between SRUIL and UPPL on 18.07.1994
whereby SRUIL agreed to allot in favour of
UPPL the adjacent piece of land
admeasuring 2,500 sq. mts in order to
enable UPPL to have the en re FSI of
1,20,000 sq. . SRUIL represented that
although the said por on of land was
reserved by the MCGM for the purposes of
a Municipal School and a Children's
Playground but the said land could be
made available by shi ing the reserva on
to an alterna ve site within the mills
compound and therea er the said
premises could be used for the purposes of
construc on of residen al complex.

Ÿ Le er of Bank of India dated 08.08.1996

addressed to Bank of Baroda wherein it was
men oned that permission of only 86000
sq. . area was granted on the plot
e a r m a r ke d fo r d e v e l o p m e n t . I t i s
men oned in the le er of Bank of India
dated 08.08.1996 that “in terms of
supplementary agreement dated 18th July
1994 between SRM & U lity, SRM allo ed
a larger property in order to enable U lity
to develop FSI utpo 1.20 lac sq . since
BMC had granted FSI only uto 86,000 sq .
on the property covered by the earlier
agreement dated 27.04.1994 due to
reserva ons on the plot for school,
playground etc”. The copy of the said le er
is enclosed herewith as Annexure-2.

Further, in para (d) of the said le er dated

08.08.1996, it has been men oned that “upon
BCFL extending financial assistance to SRM in
the sum of Rs. 21.6 crores, SRM has agreed to
assign all their right, tle and interest to

receive, recover and appropriate the
propor onate sales proceeds receivable by
SRM under the said agreement of
27.04.1994 and 18.07.1994 upto the sum of
Rs. 21.6 cr as reimbursement of the
investment proposed to be made by BCFL in

Ÿ Confirma on of UPPL's Transac on by

various affidavits: It is submi ed that
officials of SRUIL and IDBI had
confirmed the fact of sale of 1.20 lacs
sq. . FSI by SRUIL to UPPL before
various courts. The same are:-

(I) Affidavit of Mr. Abhay Kasliwal,

Chairman of SRUIL: Mr. Abhay
Kasliwal, Chairman of SRUIL has
given an affidavit before the AAIFR
on 24.09.1996 men oning that “I
say that the company entered into
Joint Development Agreement with
M/s. U lity Premises Pvt. Ltd. on
27.04.1994 for the development of
the said surplus FSI and sale
realisa on agreement with M/s.
Bhupendra Capital Finance Ltd. On
09.11.1994 whereby the company
agreed to assign its rights to receive
money under the said Joint
Development Agreement in return
for a full considera on of Rs. 21.60

(ii) Affidavit of Sh. Subhkaran K.

Luharauka, Director of SRUIL: The
President/Director of SRUIL Sh.
Subhkaran K. Luharauka , had
confirmed by way of an affidavit
dated 05.07.1995 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its
SLP (Civil) No. 14076 of 1995, that

SRUIL had sold & received the full
considera on for the same.

(iii) Affidavit of IDBI Bank by its Deputy

Manager, Mr. K.H. Vishwanathan:
The IDBI vide an affidavit dated
23.11.1995 in writ pe on before
Bombay High Court wherein it is
men oned that - “Disposal of land
to the order of 1.2 lac sq. of
surplus floor, space index (FSI) of the
Mill of respondent no. 1”. Further it
was also men oned in point no. 9
that “the commi ee, a er taking
into considera on the loca on of
the land, the rates at which
proper es were sold in the
surrounding area and the terms of
payment, approved sale of 1.2 sq.
. FSI by Respondent No. 1 to U lity
Premises Private Limited for a
considera on of Rs. 21.60 crores”.

Later on UPPL and CVIL Infra Ltd entered

into a Joint Venture Agreement on
28.06.1996 with M/s. Ansals Housing &
Construc on Ltd. for the development of
the land admeasuring 4848.1 sq. mtrs.
Pursuant to the said joint venture, an FSI of
86,725 sq. . was to be developed on the
plot against the total FSI of 1.20 lacs sq. .

However, UPPL and M/s Ansals Housing &

Construc on Ltd. could develop only an FSI
of 82,015 sq. which resulted in short fall of
4,710 sq. . of FSI. However, there was a
total short fall of 37,985 sq. . of FSI out of
total FSI of 1,20,000 sq. . which the
Applicant /UPPL and CVIL Infra were /are
en tled. Due to the shor all in FSI of 4,710,
the Applicant / UPPL has to compensate M/s
Ansals Housing for the same.


Besides the abovemen oned

transac ons SRUIL also entered into and
executed more agreements with respect
to the development of its other lands of
the owner / SRUIL which also situate
within the mills complex.

The SRUIL had some liabili es towards its

labourers also as they were to
i m m e d i ate l y p ay R s . 7 C ro re s o r
thereabouts to se le them. The UPPL in
order to se le the said labourers, on
behalf of SRUIL, made the above
payments of Rs.4.01 crores to M/s
S.Kumars Finance & Investment Ltd. (now
renamed as M/s. Landmarc Leisure
Corpora on Ltd.) and Rs.2.61 crores to
M/s S.Kumars Tyre Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
These agreements dated 18.08.1994 and 23.12.1993 were executed by the Applicant Santosh
Kumar Bagla in his individual capacity. Thus an amount of Rs. 6.62 crores in total was also paid by
Applicant and his associate to the above said associate companies of SRUIL to se le the claims and
dues of the labours which was also part of the revival scheme of SRUIL.


Agreement Dated 18.08.1994 and other various agreement/ documents: Executed
between the promoters of the UPPL, CVIL and the SRUIL for the development of 3580.44 Sq.
Mts. which comes to approximately 65,493 Sq. Fts of FSI on the land known as Bhiwandiwala
Building, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 against which the UPPL &
CVIL together made a payment of Rs. 4.01 Crores to SRUIL in 1994.


Agreement Dated 23.12.1993 and other various documents: Executed between UPPL,
CVIL and the SRUIL for the development of 1.63 Lacs Sq.. Ft. of land situated known as
Commercial Area situated at Shri Ram Mills Compound, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower
Parel, Mumbai 400 013 against which the Applicant / UPPL & CVIL made a payment of Rs.
2.61 Crores to SRUIL as part considera on amount.

Ÿ In furtherance of the aforesaid Agreements dated 27.04.1994 and 18.07.1994, the
SRUIL appointed one M/s. Bhupendra Engineering & Construc ons as 'PROJECT
MANAGER' for the smooth development of the lands and projects of SRUIL as per
agreements with the Applicant / UPPL.
Ÿ The said appointment of BEC was duly approved and confirmed by the SRUIL vide its
Board resolu on dated 31.10.1994 duly passed by the Board of Directors of SRUIL.
Ÿ Subsequently, another Agreement dated 02.11.1994 between the par es was executed
and accordingly, the physical possession for use and occupa on of the property/ land of
the owner SRUIL was handed over by SRUIL to BEC. Further, considering the
apprehension of BEC, SRUIL in order to secure the Project Manager's interests, created
a lien on the said Property in favour of them ll the FSI of 1,20,000 sq. . as envisaged is
not achieved.

Applicability of National Building Code
The regulation 43 of DCR, 1991 deals with the Fire Protection requirements.
As far as the applicability of the National Building Code of India is concerned, clause 1 of
Regulation 43 of DCR, 1991 is material which may read as under-
43(1) General:- The planning design and construction of any building shall be such as to ensure
safety from fire. For this purpose, unless otherwise specified in these Regulations, the
provisions of Part IV: Fire Protection Chapter, National Building Code, shall apply. For
multistoried, high rise and special buildings, additional provisions relating to fire protection
contained in Appendix VIII shall also apply,
Appendix VIII [Regulation 43 of DCR, 1991]- Additional Fire protection Requirements for
multi-storeyed High Rise and special Building .
General- (1) In addition to the provisions of Part IV fire Protection National Building code of
India, the Chief Fire Officer may insist on suitable provisions in multistoreyed, high rise and
special buildings or premises from the fire safety and fire - fighting point of view depending on
their occupancy and height.

Maharashtra Fire Prevention & Life Safety Measure Act 2006

As per the Maharashtra Fire Prevention & Life Safety Measure Act 2006 Chapter 1(5)- The
expression “fire prevention and life safety measures” means such measures as are necessary
in accordance with the building bye-laws or as required by or under the provisions of any law or
the National Building Code of India, 2005, for the time being in force, for the prevention,
control and fighting of fire and for ensuring the safety of life and property in the case of fire.

As per National Building Code 2005 part 4 Fire & Life Safety 4.12.3
For building more than 24 m. in height, refuge area of 15 sq. mts. or an area equivalent to 0.3 sq.
mtrs. per person to accommodate the occupants of two consecutive floors, whichever is
higher, shall be provided as under.
The refuge area shall be provided on the periphery of the floor or preferably on a cantilever
projection and open to air at least on one side protected with suitable railings.
a) For floor above, 24m and upto 39 m- one refuge area on the floor immediately above 24 m.
b) For floor above 39 m- one refuge area on the floor immediately above 39m and so on after
every 15 m. refuge area provided in excess of the requirement shall be counted towards
Note: residential flats in multi-storied building with balcony, need not be provided with refuge
area, however flats without balcony shall provide refuge are as given above.
The National Building code specifies manner and minimum extent of refuge area
requirement in the high rise building based on various factors such as occupant load, travel
distance etc. The said factor shall be considered while designing a new building.

Requirements of individual exits at each floor

The regulation 44 of DCR, 1991 deals with the requirement of making a provision of refuge
area. Clause 7 is material for consideration which read thus:
Clause (7)-Refuge area:
(a) (i) The refuge area shall be provided within building line at floor level.
(ii) In case of multistoreyed & high rise buildings having height more than 30 mts., first
refuge area shall be provided at 24 mt. or 1st habitable floor, whichever is higher.
Thereafter, the refuge area shall be provided at every 7th habitable floor. The refuge
area shall be 4% of the habitable floor area it serves, and will be free of FSI. If it
exceeds 4%, the excess area shall be counted in FSI.
(B) Notwithstanding clause (a) for buildings having height upto 70 mts, as an alternate,
Refuge areas can be provided as R.C.C. cantilever projections at the alternate mid-
landing level of staircase , free of FSI. Each refuge area at mid-landing shall have a
minimum width of 3.0 mts and minimum area of 10.0 sq.mts for residential and 15
sq.mts for non-residential buildings.
© In case of multistoreyed & high rise buildings upto 30 mts. height, the terrace floor of the
building shall be treated as the refuge area.

With regards to the unauthorized constructions & misuse of Refuge Area in the project Palais
Royale, the main issues, challenges & submissions in the Public Interest Litigation No. 43 of
2012, filled by Janhit Manch and Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. can broadly be
categorized under following heads:
Public Parking Lot (PPL) and Stop Work notices;
Main residential building and the commencement certificates;
Refuge Area and Fire Fighting arrangements ;
Compensation for setback area;
Height of habitable floors;
Passages at manor level;
Service floors;
Amenity floors;
FSI of Duplex floors;
Other issues like servant toilets, structural columns, toilets at duplex level, flower beds etc.


There were mainly 6 issues raised in the said PIL which were discussed before the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay and an order was accordingly passed on 13.05.2013. The summary of the
issues addressed by the Hon'ble High Court have been:
I. Public Parking Lot;
ii. FSI granted in respect of Refuge Area;
iii. Entitlement of SRUIL to claim FSI in lieu of setback area;
iv. Passages at Manor level and entrance and swimming pool, area over deck, and Refuge Area
at the entrance level;
v. F.S.I. in respect of structural columns; and
vi. N.O.C. from high rise committee.

The UHRF have been doing research for ensuring strict
financial discipline in the public and corporate sectors and
while doing so, we came to know about various
irregularities & illegalities of some of the real estate
development and construction companies whereby they
often twist and grossly violates the rules by unlawful
planning and construction of additional / unauthorized
area that are beyond their entitlement. The UHRF, an NGO
with its limited resources and man power has conducted a
thorough research able to collect data and analyzed the
same on the illegalities/ unauthorized construction in
Mumbai by various Developers/ Builders.
The real estate projects of some of the corporate builders
a re p ro m o t i n g a n d e n co u ra g i n g u n a u t h o r i ze d
development with violations to areas free of FSI such as
Refuge Areas, Flower Beds, Voids, Ducts, Lobbies,
Gardens, Swimming Pools etc. thereby causing danger to
the lives of thousands of poor and common citizen across
the country having habitation in these buildings / projects.
The UHRF's research work has been on the various real
estate projects of the corporate houses and one of them is
'Palais Royale' of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.
(SRUIL). Most of the projects constructed by the
Developers / Corporate Houses at Mumbai are in complete
violation of Development Control Regulations, National
Building Code and BMC/MCGM bye-laws and are being
built unauthorized & illegally.
Though the UHRF presents the ultimate violations in
building construction activities by presenting the Palais
Royale project case in detail, however there exists multiple
number of violations by various developers in their
respective projects. The UHRF has collected from various
trusted and dependable sources, drawings showing Refuge
Areas and its violations by these developers.


There are several mammoth illegalities & irregularities in the said Project Palais Royale of the
developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. The UHRF had done a rigorous research and
received the above tabulated data from various sources. This under construction 56 storied
skyscraper (residential tower) at Worli Naka, Mumbai, is a classic example of misuse of Refuge Area.

The project Palais Royale as stated above, is a classic example of
violations and misuse of Refuge Areas. The FSI granted in
respect of Refuge Area is vastly excessive
The Municipal Commissioner has allowed Refuge Areas surrounding each flat on each floor of the
Palais Royale building with a view of favoring the developer and has in turn cast the safety of the
occupants to the wind. This is a safety hazard and is contrary to the fundamental concept of a
Refuge Area which should never has access from any flat or apartment and should be a segregated
area easily accessible only by a common passage or staircase and where occupants can easily
assemble to be rescued in cases of emergency. In the case of Palais Royale, as the Refuge Areas are
outside each flat, in the event of a fire or calamity, this will prove to be death traps if occupants
have to be rescued from each flat. This will lead to a disaster and loss of several lives.
In fact the developer Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited has blatantly disregarded the safety
norms, which is clear from the fact that it has sold these Refuge Areas and passages to the flat
purchasers in the form of decks/terraces. This not only amounts to FSI violation but also amounts
to a criminal action of fraud and playing with the lives of citizens.
The total built up area from 13th to 15th floor (without considering lower levels including
amenities services) is 142038.82 sq. mts. As per the BMC / MCGM total Refuge Area is 22617.64
sq. mts.
According to MCGM, the percentage of Refuge Area to total built up area (excluding lower levels),
works out to about 15%.
The Refuge Areas of the entrance of the flats are accessible and merge able in the flats and are
likely to be misused by 6355.58 sq. mts. It was also stated that Refuge Area which further be
available in Palais Royale as free of FSI is 16262.06 sq. mts.

D.C.R 33(24):
The Developer has proposed Public Parking Lot (PPL) in the above referred plot and claimed
additional FSI as per short term amendments by Govt. of Maharashtra U/No.
CHE/387/MC/Rds. & Traffic Dt. 06.08.2010 and the High-Power Committee have approved the
proposal for accommodating 900 parking spaces. The Developer has proposed 3 basements +
stilt + 1 to 15 floors for the PPL. The Developer has taken entire FSI benefit in the proposed
building and amended the plans upto 58 floors. Later on Government of Maharashtra has
withdrawn the modifications on 18.05.2011.
1. The size of the PPL to be accepted by MCGM and the consequent FSI benefits to be
conferred upon the developer has to be gone into in detail. In this case, the developer SRUIL
has carried out construction up to 15 floors for PPL on the basic of deemed CC and
requested MCGM to take over the said PPL. The city civil court by Order 16-05-2013 has
decreed the suit and held that the notice under section 354A of MMC Act is invalid, illegal
and not enforceable, thereby the MCGM is perpetually restrained from enforcing the said
notice dated 14.12.2011. The said decree of the Court merely accords protection to SRUIL
against the said notice under section 354(A) of MMC Act. The decree cannot be stretched
to imply that MCGM is obliged to accept the 15 floors of PPL and confer FSI benefits
connected with such PPL construction.
2. The Hon'ble High Court has observed that “The public parking Lot cannot be held illegal as
contended by the petitioner and the Respondent, i.e., Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.
cannot be deprived from claiming incentive FSI accrued there from for the Residential
Building, if otherwise available in law.'' Since the PPL policy as contained in MCGM Circular
dated 22.06.2011 has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court , MCGM can accept PPL
comprising of 3 basements + ground floor + 4 upper floors and incentive FSI against the
same can be made available to SRUIL on payment of premium and after handing over of
3. In view of the above, the 5th to 15th floors of the PPL building are not in consonance with
the MCGM Circular dated 22.06.2011 and the directives dated 19th March, 2012 issued by
State Govt. u/s 37 (1) of MRTP Act, 1966. Hence, MCGM cannot take over 5th to 15th floors
of PPL building and no incentive FSI is therefore admissible for the same.

The Issue of Passages at Manor Level, Swimming Pool, Area Over Deck and Refuge Area at
the entrance level and Findings of the Architect
I. Under regulation 35 (2)(c), the common passages are allowed free of FSI, however they
should be common passages accessible to all. In the present case, the refuge area at the
entrance of the flat, passages connecting to the flats, passage at Manor levels, swimming
pool at Duplex level and covered area over the deck are not common areas accessible to all
the therefore will have to be counted in FSI.
ii. As per MCGM circular dated 27.02.2007, swimming pool for individual purpose will not be
allowed. If the amenity has a common access and if it is covered at the height of at least 2
floors, the same will be allowed free of FSI. The space for filtration plant and chlorination
plant etc. are functional requirements of the main activity of the swimming pool.
Therefore, these installations will be free of FSI.
iii. In the present case, swimming pools were allowed flats free of FSI Under the discretionary
powers by the then Municipal Commissioner. As per the MCGM policy detailed in Circular
dated 27.02.2007, swimming pool having height less than 9.00 meters will also be counted
in FSI. The deck area also be counted in FSI.
In view of the above facts, the passages at manor level and entrance , swimming pool area, deck
area and refuge area at the entrance level which were earlier granted free of FSI, need to be
counted in FSI.

The Public Parking Lot is initially sanctioned on the recommendations of a committee
constituted under Regulation 33 (24) under the Chairmanship of the Municipal Commissioner,
by following due process of law. Initially on approval of the State Government dated
18.06.2010. Letter of Intent was granted on 06.08.2010 and the plans of the 3 Basement +
Ground + 15 upper floors of the Public Parking Tower were sanctioned and IOD was issued of
the same on 20.08.2010. The Commencement Certificate (hereinafter referred to as CC) up to
plinth was also issued on 01.10.2010.

Thereafter by letter dated 04.03.2011, the State Government informed the Municipal
Commissioner to restrict the construction of the PPL allowed under Regulation 33 (24) of
Development Control Regulation – 1991 (hereinafter referred to as DCR), upto four floors.
Thereafter, the Municipal Commissioner under the powers vested under Regulation 33(24)
(iv), issued notice under Section 51 of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966
(hereinafter referred to as MRTP Act) to all the developers whose PPL proposals were
approved. The CC in respect of the PPL of SRUIL is granted upto plinth only. Thus Notice u/s 51
of MRTP Act was issued to SRUIL on 29.11.2011. However, on the basis of deemed CC, the
SRUIL proceeded with the construction of PPL as per plans.
MCGM therefore issued stop work notice under section 354A of Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as MMC Act) to SRUIL on 14.12.2011 and notice
under section 53(1) of MRTP Act was also issued 19.12.2011. The said notice u/s 53(1) of MRTP
work notice issued u/sec 354A of MMC Act was challenged before the Hon'ble City Civil Court
in Suit No. 2942 of 2011. The City Civil Court by interim Order dt. 24.12.2011 has permitted
SRUIL to carry on the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plans. Thereafter, the
said suit and perpetually restrained MCGM from enforcing its notice under section 354A of
MMC Act.
The plan for the main residential building were approved upto 56 upper floors. However, the CC
was granted only upto 43rd floor. In view of the interim orders of Hon'ble City Civil Court in
relation to PPL, SRUIL constructed 15 floors in respected of PPL. Even though the CC for the
residential building, namely Palais Royale was granted upto 43 floors only, SRUIL continued
construction up 56 floors i.e., beyond CC. It needs to be mentioned here that the CC beyond 43
floor could have been given only upon satisfactory completion and handing over of PPL to
MCGM and otherwise.

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has on the direction of the
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, considered the issues mentioned in said order dated
13.05.2013 and passed the following:
1) As Regards the Public Parking Lot (PPL), it shall be as per the MCGM Circular dated
22.06.2011 and as per state Govt. directives dated 19.03.2012 issued under section 37(1) of
MRTP act, which is in accordance with the law. Hence MCGM will accept PPL comprising of
3 basements + ground + 4 upper floors, which only will be eligible for grant of incentive FSI
toward construction of PPL requisite premium as per policy.
2) Refuge Areas shall be provided free of FSI only to the extent of 4% of the built-up area it
serves. Refuge areas in excess of the aforesaid requirements shall be counted in FSI
accordance with clause 4.12.3 of National Building Code.
3) There is no provision in the DCR for exclusion of the structural columns from FSI
computations. Hence, the structural columns need to be counted in FSI.
4) As regard the setback area and measuring 705.45, FSI Advantage in lieu of handing
over the cannot be granted at this stage, in absence of conclusive documentary evidence.
5) The Passage at manor level and the entrance, swimming pool, area over deck and refuge
area at the entrance level, which were earlier permitted free of FSI shall be counted in FSI in
accordance with law.
6) The request of SRUIL to pay the security deposit under DCR 5(3)(xi) and to levy the premium
as per section 22(m) of MRTP Act, 1966 is rejected.
7) Since there are many interlinked revised FSI computations as aforesaid, the project
proponent (SRUIL) is directed to submit modified plans in accordance with the regulations.

On the basis of UHRF's comprehensive research and analysis on Palais Royale
case with all related documents received from various sources which prove the
illegal constructions at Palais Royale, the UHRF herein briefly describe all the
unauthorized and illegal construction carried out by the developer Shree Ram
Urban Infrastructure Ltd. and its associates and request to take strict action
against all the violators.
As part of its research and data collection, the UHRF subsequently filed several RTI applications
and able to receive / get from BMC / MCGM voluminous files, documents being 9 files of
EB/987/GS/A (1436 pages) and 4 files of EB/2572/GS/AL (1705 pages) pertaining to the project
'Palais Royale'. The UHRF accordingly appointed an independent architect namely M/s.
Dimensions Architect of Mumbai to get an opinion on the same and after thorough
examination of the said documents submitted by the architect firm who gave their report dated
11.02.2015 highlighting several additional illegalities and irregularities in the project.
There are several mammoth illegalities & irregularities in the Project 'Palais Royale' of Shree
Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd and the point wise description thereof is as under:
i) The MCGM has sanctioned the plans beyond the provisions of the Development Control
Regulations under the garb of the discretionary powers available under Regulation 64(b) of
DCR 1991. The powers vested with the concerned officials of the BMC/ MCGM were
misused and utilized arbitrarily to grant largesse to the Developer. The Regulation bars
MCGM from using the discretion for purposes of FSI. However, to the Complainant's
dismay and disbelief, MCGM has granted concessions which amounts to casting the statute
to the winds.
ii) The developer company has flouted conditions of LOI with complete immunity wherein, the
PPL was mandated to be handed over to MCGM on ownership basis and it is only then, the
incentive FSI was available to be utilized on the Main residential building being constructed.
However, though said mandatory requirements have not been complied with by the
developer SRUIL, yet, they have utilized the incentive FSI for main residential building in
connivance with the concerned officials of BMC / MCGM.
iii) Without the incentive FSI being accrued, the 13 floors of the Main Residential building from
44th to 56th floors, have been constructed without any commencement certificate and FSI.
This illegality speaks in volume of taking the Statute for granted. Surprisingly, till date, the
municipal corporation (MCGM) is shying away from its responsibility of taking action under
the provisions of the MMC Act as well as under the MR & TP Act for the illegal construction
of 13 floors beyond sanctioned 43 floors. It is learnt that there is no restraining orders from
any courts preventing MCGM from taking stringent action against the project and the

iv) It is regretted to say that the MCGM in their generosity has also granted refuge areas, fire
escape passages, huge passages, decks, huge flower beds, etc. free of FSI to the developer
who has brazenly merged these areas in the respective flats and sold them to the flat buyers
at astronomical prices.
v) The developer company and its concerned Directors / Officers in active connivance with the
MCGM, have taken advantage of the FSI of the area under road widening whilst the
compensation for this area was paid to the company in the year 1976 as per the MCGM/ULC
records. There is absolutely an FSI fraud and in the process, records and documentary
evidence have been manipulated, fabricated and doctored and the same have been used for
the purpose of committing this FSI fraud.


According to the shown plan, apparently the Refuge Area & Flower Bed
Area are merged with Flat Area by violating Fire Safety Norms.

Typical floor plan of Palais Royale




No. S

1. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd Pending SC

The State Of Maharashtra & Others
SLP(C) No. 010704 - 010705 / 2016

2. Janhit Manch. Pending SC

The State Of Maharashtra & Others
S.L.P.(C)...Cc No. 013527 - 013528 / 2016

3. Janhit Manch. Pending SC

The State Of Maharashtra & Others
T.C.(C) No. 000271 - / 2017

4. Janhit Manch. Pending SC

The State Of Maharashtra & Others
MA 001679 - / 2017 IN T.C.(C) No. 567/2017

5. United Human Rights Federa uon And Anr Pending Mumbai High
Versus Court
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. (SRUIL)
W.P. CRL. No. 3143/2015

6. U lity Premises Pvt. Ltd. Pending Mumbai High

Versus Court
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.

7. Janhit Manch And Anr. Pending Mumbai High

Versus Court
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.

8. M/S. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. Pending Mumbai High

Versus Kalpataru Proper es Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Court

9. Ac on Barter Private Limited Pending Mumbai High

Versus Court
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited

10. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd And Anr Pending Mumbai High
Versus Court
The Sate Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors And Janhit Manch
And Anr (Applicnats)

11. A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Pending Mumbai High
A. Navinchandra Steels Ltd.) Court
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.

12. Ac on Barter Private Limited Pending Mumbai High

Versus Court
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited
C.P. No. 1066/2015

13. Janhit Manch And Anr. Pending Mumbai High

Versus Court
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. And Anr.

1. As per the provisions under newly enacted Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016 (RERA), and rules under Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the details
which required to be made available by the SRUIL on MahaRera site as updated is
incomplete and misleading as SRUIL failed to provide any information with regard to its
litigations for the sake of various investors of Palais Royale.
2. This amounts to concealment and mis-representation by SRUIL of its ongoing real estate
development project(s) at Mumbai. As per the property cards submitted by the owners /
petitioner, the ownership of the land has been shown as follows:

C.S. Nos. Area Tenure Ownership

310,309 & 1/1539 3376.28 Municipal Shree Ram Mills Ltd


1547 4339.49 Leased by Leased


1548 1413.88 ---do---

1549 347.83 ---do--- Shree Ram Mills

1550 1396.32 ---do---

288 716.56 Municipality Municipality

289 51865.51 L.T.A. Shree Ram Mills

1/1540, 2/1540, 5081.14 Nil Shree Ram Mills


3. It is clear that C.S. No. 1547, 1548 & 1550 are leased to SRUIL and other plots are owned by
them. How can amalgamation or joint development be allowed under Development
Control Regulation, 1991 by SRUIL? The freehold land of the owners / SRUIL and the
leasehold lands of the Municipality / MCGM were amalgamated and subdivided without
the sanction / permission of the MCGM who is the Lessor of land. Also, no sanction of the
Improvements Committee and Corporation has been obtained by the developer / SRUIL.

That in Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa and Ors, (2004) 8 SCC 733,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
“… only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide or are attributable to some
misunderstanding or are such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition would be
far less than disadvantage suffered. Other than these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to
be condoned and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare
minimum. The officials who have connived in encouraging and abetting unauthorized or
illegal constructions should be spared. In developing cities, the strength of staff which is
supposed to keep a watch on building activities should be suitably increased in the larger
public interest to keep a constant and vigilant watch on illegal or authorized constructions.”

Ÿ Illegal Mortgaged of Property by SRUIL: SRUIL offered its guarantee and created a mortgage
in 2004 of its entire property including that portion for which Utility Premises Pvt. Ltd. (UPPL)
had paid full consideration to SRUIL in 1994, in favour of M/s. IL&FS for a term loan of Rs. 50
cr. sanctioned to M/s. Vijay Infrastructure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. by IL&FS. The SRUIL created
Indenture of Mortgage despite the fact that it had given an undertaking before the Delhi
High Court on 26.07.2004, that it will not sell and alienate the Property.

Ÿ As stated above, SRUIL was a sick company which require to obtain permission from AAIFR
before mortgaging its property. Further, UPPL and CVIL have filed a complaint before Central
Bureau of Investigation on 25.08.2005.

Ÿ M/s. UPPL when came across the said illegalities and fraud of SRM qua the transaction and
the loan, filed various objections/ complaints and letters to the Governor, RBI (dated
21.09.2005), the Director, CBI (dated 25.08.2005) and the Joint Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Govt. of India (dated 06.09.2005 and 21.09.2005).

Ÿ M/s. UPPL had also made a complaint dated 02.05.2005 to the Municipal Commissioner,
BMC informing about the criminal conspiracy on the part of SRUIL. However, still no action
from BMC in this regard.

Ÿ M/s. UPPL vide another complaint dated 24.09.2005 to the Governor, RBI with a copy to
various supervisory and regulatory authorities and to Banks, complain about SRUIL and
others for defrauding and grabbing public money by disbursing loan to SRUIL.\

Ÿ It is submitted that in Clause 15 the agreement with UPPL dated 27.04.1994 clearly mention
that –

Ÿ “… SRM shall not hereafter create any third party interest in respect of the said portion
and/or proposed building or any part thereof.”

Ÿ Transaction of SRUIL with M/s. Kalapatru Constructions Overseas Ltd.:- It is also learnt that
one M/s Kalapatru Constructions Overseas Ltd. had purchased the property from SRUIL by
investing huge monies in the projects of SRUIL and disputes between them is also going on.

Ÿ Illegal sale of 28,000 sq. ft. area by SRUIL:- The SRUIL besides the above, had sold 28,000 sq.
mtrs. of land to said M/s. Vijay Infrastructure Project vide an agreement dated 27.06.1996
which on behalf of Vijay Infrastructure Project was taken over by M/s. Vijay Infrastructure
Project Pvt. Ltd. directors of which were the same as SRUIL. The inference can easily be taken
that the agreement to sell 28,000 sq. mtrs. by SRUIL was illegal as the agreement entered
into was with the persons having interest in the SRUIL. The agreement and transaction
between SRUIL and said Vijay Infrastructure Project was a sham arrangement since no
documents concerning the said company and/or firm is available with the concerned
Registrar of Companies, Mumbai or at the Registrar of Firms, Mumbai. This has been
disclosed by M/s. S.K. Jain & Company, Company Secretaries at Mumbai vide their certificate
dated 02.03.2001.

Ÿ Compensation received by SRUIL regarding setback area:- M/s. UPPL has also learnt that
an area admeasuring 2442.87 sq.yds. concerning C.S. No. 289 of Lower of Parel was handed
over and compensation paid. With regard to setback area monitory compensation was
paid but SRUIL refused to have received such compensation and availed extra FSI in lieu of
that which they consumed in their said Palais Royale project. It was a serious FSI fraud and
compensation being investigated by ACB, Mumbai and files/records and register No. 26, 28,
32 33 & 36 are still in the custody of ACB. In this regard, the BMC was also cheated however
they did not take any action against SRUIL and its officials. The SRUIL has men &
management skill who are expert in managing and influencing people.

Ÿ It is relevant to mention that S.Kumars Group of Companies including SRUIL, headed by

Kasliwals are involved in a scam of more than Rs. 40,000 crores. This group owes more than
18,600 crores to government owned Banks & Financial Institutions. The S.Kumars Group is a
willful defaulter of their loans. It also owes about Rs. 15,000 crores to the investors in the
stock market, vendors, commercial transactions and are having liability of Rs. 5,000 crores
towards tax evasion like Income Tax, Central Excise & Customs, Vat etc. The applicant has
learnt that some NGO has also filed a public interest litigation before the Hon'ble High Court
& Supreme Court of India against the illegalities and frauds of S.Kumars Group of

Ÿ It is relevant to mention that S.Kumars Group of Companies including SRUIL, headed by
Kasliwals are involved in a scam of more than Rs. 40,000 crores. This group owes more than
18,600 crores to government owned Banks & Financial Institutions. The S.Kumars Group is a
willful defaulter of their loans. It also owes about Rs. 15,000 crores to the investors in the
stock market, vendors, commercial transactions and are having liability of Rs. 5,000 crores
towards tax evasion like Income Tax, Central Excise & Customs, Vat etc. The applicant has
learnt that some NGO has also filed a public interest litigation before the Hon'ble High Court
& Supreme Court of India against the illegalities and frauds of S.Kumars Group of

Ÿ M/s. UPPL has learnt that winding up/ company petitions have already been filed by the
creditors (Banks & FIs) and are pending before the Hon'ble High Courts against some of the
S.Kumars Group companies namely – S.Kumars Nationwide Ltd (C.P. No. 511 of 2014), Reid
and Taylor (I) Ltd. (C.P. No. 648 of 2013 & C.P. No. 267 of 2013, C.P. No. 639 of 2013, C.P. No.
30 of 2014 etc.). The Hon'ble Court in those petitions has also passed appropriate
orders/directions to the Official / Provisional Liquidator.

In a similar winding petition against which SRUIL had filed a civil appeal being No. 5849-
5850/2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon'ble apex court has
disposed of the appeal on undertaking of SRUIL wherein they agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 18
crores to the respondent M/s Action Barter Private Limited.


PPL was approved for 900 parking spaces but later on the
policy was withdrawn and restricted only 4 floors, but
illegally constructed 15 storied. The incen ve builtup area
of about 18000 sq. mt. is grossly violated and excessively
- the saleable rate is about Rs. 40,000 per sq .
-Excess are in unauthorized 162000 s
Premium /
-total receipt from unauthorized construc on (162000 x Penalty by BMC /
Total areas grossly violated
1. Refuge area: approx 30000 sq. mt.
for all the said
2. Flower bed: approx 6400 sq. mt. grossly viola on
3. Common passages: approx 9500
is Rs. 162 cr.
4. Swimming pool area: approx 3500 sq m
-the saleable rate is about Rs. 40,000 per sq . which is a
-Excess are in unauthorized 531737 s
meager amount
-total receipt from unauthorized construc on
(531737 x 40,000) considering the
Unauthorized Construc on of 13th Floor having 4 flats on Benefits to SRUIL
each floor:-
-Selling price per flats Rs. 40 approx -total receipt from
amoun ng to Rs.
unauthorized construc on (13 x 4 x 40 cr) 7,415 cr. approx.
Proposed 72 floors in RERA site, therefore 16 flats are
unauthorized proposed: -Selling price per flats Rs. 40
approx -total receipt from unauthorized construc on
(16 X 4 x 40 cr)

Despite of the unauthorised and illegal construction in Palais
Royale project, there are various other offences committed
being punishable under Indian Penal Code, Prevention of
Corruption Act, Income Tax Act, 1961 and Bombay Stamps
Act, 1958 by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited through
collusion, connivance or conspiracy with some other
corporate/ financial institutions having great influence in the
market. The UHRF state as under:

Brief about the Project 'Palais Royale'

Ÿ M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd is the owner of a
large piece of land admeasuring 28,409.57 sq.mts. at Worli
Mumbai, on part of land being Plot 5B + 6, whereupon it
proposed to construct the said building 'Palais Royale'
comprising of 2 levels basement and 73 levels of upper
floor) and a Public Parking Lot. The last plan for residential
building for 56 floors was approved on 8.2.2011, however
commencement certificate has been endorsed upto 43
floors only vide letter dated 18.11.2011. The structure of
the building has been lying complete however there are
severe violations of building bye-laws particularly misuse of
Refuse Area and gross negligence of fire safety guidelines
as issued by government time to time.
Ÿ On 24.01.2005, the proposed plans for commercial
building and car service centre were approved by the
MCGM. It is claimed that the last plan for residential
building for 56 floors was approved on the 08.02.2011.
From 1st to the 43rd floors of the building consist of 112
flats (76 Sky Apartments, 32 Manors and 4 Villas). Out of
the 112 flats, 84 flats have already been sold as on date for a
value of Rs. 2162 cr against which there is a receivable of
approx Rs. 950 cr. Upto 43rd floor, the dispute remain as to
whether Refuge Area in the periphery of every floor
(measuring approximately 12,600 sq. mtrs. upto 43rd floor)
and 4900 sq. mtrs. at the entrance or the 3 refuge floors
(measuring 9753 sqmtrs.) is to be allowed free of FSI.
Ÿ The Developer SRUIL has taken secured loan from M/s.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (hereinafter referred as
IBHFL) and the entire project is mortgaged to IBHFL. As
part of the larger dealing, IBHFL apart from advancing
loans to the SRUIL, has also advanced loans to various
group companies/ sister concerns of the SRUIL. As on
30.06.2017, the IBHFL has shown an outstanding of Rs.
592 cr in SRUIL and Rs. 676 cr. in other accounts (Total Rs.
1268 cr).

The modus-operandi of SRUIL and cheating & fraud with government and public at large and
probable offences of gratification under Prevention of Corruption Act :
Ÿ Now, UHRF would like to place on record the cheating and frauds of the company M/s SRUIL
concerning the statutory dues / government taxes and against the public at large which is a
serious offences of gratification under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this
connection, the UHRF would like to place before you the ghastly intention of SRUIL whereby
they almost succeeded in their plan to dissolve the company SRUIL by initiating a collusive
proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
Ÿ The company SRUIL in its attempt has succeeded to drain out funds from the project i.e.
Palais Royal in collusion, connivance or conspiracy with the said Indiabulls Housing Finance
Ltd and other corporate / financial institutions. The said SRUIL is not only responsible for
the offences committed but other entities/ individuals who were directly or indirectly
involve in their strategy and have committed the said scam, are liable to be prosecuted. It is
apparent as revealed from the records/ documents available with UHRF that the following
entities / persons were/are involved in the offences/ scam as stated:

I) M/s. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd / SRUIL;
SRUIL is a listed company and involved in real estate development and construction
business. The company being listed one, huge public funds are invested in the Company
including fund raised from the Banks and Financial Institutions and monies invested by the
space / flat buyers in their various projects.
II) Mr. Vikas Shambukumar Kasliwal;
Vice Chairman & Managing Director, M/s Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.
III) M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited / IBHFL;
A Non-Banking Finance Company and also a listed public limited company. As a listed
company, massive public fund are invested in the said company.
iV) Mr. Sameer Gehlaut;
Chairman, M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited.
V) Mr. Saket Bahuguna;
CEO, M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited
Vi) M/s. Adhita Realty Private Limited;
This company though has been formed as a private limited company, however, it is merely a
dummy enterprise which is a part of ABIL Group of Companies owned by some Mr. Avinash
Bhosale who was/is a shareholder and authorised signatory of the company

VII) Mr. Avinash Bhosale;
Promoter / Director / Authorized Signatory of ABIL Group of Companies.
VIII) M/s. Action Barter Private Limited (ABPL);
Also a private limited having authorized capital of Rs. 11 lacs and is being represented by
Mr. Ghanshyam Sarda as owner of Group Companies. This company is also fake entity
which is a part of Mr. Ghansyam Sarda and has been incorporated and activated with sole
purpose to siphon of funds whenever need arises purely the whims and fancies of its
promoters & Directors.
T he U H R F has done an
extensive research with
re ga rd to t h e f i n a n c i a l
irregularities of these entities
and have collected
information / evidences as
available in public domain
and by other reliable sources.
A. T he C onspiracy for
initiating Liquidation
process and filing of
winding up petition
collusively by M /s.
Action Barter Private
Limited before Hon'ble
High Court of Bombay
in Company Petition
No. 1066 of 2015
I) The said M/s Action
Barter Private Limited
(ABPL) filed a winding
up petition being No.
1066 of 2015 against the Company SRUIL under Section 433(e), 434 and 439 of the
Companies Act, 1956 before Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the year 2015. The said
Action Barter Pvt. Ltd. in the said petition has demanded / claimed a sum of Rs. 21.76 cr
from SRUIL.

ii) It is stated that ABPL had purchased two flats being Flat No. 21 NE and 22 SW in the said
project building Palais Royale of SRUIL. However, due to non-progressing of project by
SRUIL, ABPL has to surrender said two flats for which the Developer SRUIL agreed to pay /
refund them a sum of Rs. 18 cr.
iii) On 05.10.2016, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay appointed as Provisional Liquidator of
SRUIL in the above company petition of the ABPL. The Provisional Liquidator forthwith took
charge of the assets/properties and records of SRUIL without any notification.
iv) Thereafter, the said order was challenged in Special Leave Petitions in the matter filed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, after the order passed by the Supreme Court on
27/02/2017, parties filed consent terms before Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in said
Company Petition No. 1066 of 2015. The undertaking recorded in the consent terms were
accepted by SRUIL and the petition came to be disposed of in terms thereof on 22/03/2017.
v) Later on SRUIL defaulted in payment of the instalments as per the consent terms as a result
the petition stands admitted and advertised and the matter was stand over to 24/08/2017.

II) The said ABPL did not pay even a single
penny to SRUIL for booking of the above
two flats. Since no payment was made by
ABPL to SRUIL, therefore, same is not
disclosed by them in the proceedings before
various courts.
III) Interestingly, the rights in the said two flats
were surrendered surreptitiously by ABPL
to SRUIL for which SRUIL agreed to pay Rs.
18 cr. to ABPL and for this they even
entered into a cancellation agreement
dated 02.04.2014 despite the fact that no
consideration whatsoever was paid for the
said flats.
IV) The perusal of records and documents
available on the website of Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, reveals that only one-
page Balance Sheet for the financial year
ending 31st March 2009, 2010 and 2011
were filed by ABPL with the Registrar of
Companies. The perusal of balance sheet
for the financial year ending 31st March
2012, does not reveal transaction regarding
purchasing of above two flats by ABPL in
the project Palais Royale. There is no
disclosure in the balance sheet regarding
purchasing of these two flats.
VI) The fictitious entry of purchase of flats in
the project Palais Royale was only an
accommodation entry and meant to establish the claim for execution of cancelation
agreement dated 02.04.2014. This is a classic case of drain out funds and present to entire
world that the company is facing financial crunch so that company's assets can be sold to
selective people or firm at distressed rate and then sell the same into the open market at high
VII) In alternative, it is also possible that an understanding between SRUIL and ABPL may have
arrived whereby ABPL was to act as a go-between and managing the various governments
authorities regarding the project 'Palais Royale' on behalf of SRUIL and obtain the various
permission and occupation certificate by suitably greasing the government machinery. Since
funds for this work could not be allocated legally, therefore this circuitous route is adopted
where an alleged purchase is made without consideration and a cancellation agreement was
executed on account of non-fulfilment of the terms of a “non-existent Sale Agreement” and
an amount of Rs. 18 Cr. was agreed to pay on account of cancellation of Sale Agreements
wherein no payment was made at all.

In view of the above, it is crystal
clear that the above transaction of
SRUIL with ABPL is an
accommodation and was to convert
an illegal transaction as a legal one
and also to mislead the Hon'ble
Courts. They have not disclosed the
proper facts before the Hon'ble
courts which is required to be
investigated and persons who
p a rt ic ip ated , a d va n ced a n d
performed the illegal act(s) are
required to be prosecuted for
establishing integrity and probity in
public and corporate life.
B . F ra u d u l e n t e xe c u t i o n o f
M e m o r a n d u m o f
Understanding (MOU) dated
24.09.2015 between SRUIL and
Adhita Realty Private Limited:
As demonstrated above, SRUIL has succeeded in its strategy to get the Company dissolved in
collusive proceeding before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. SRUIL has also succeeded in
draining out funds from the project through collusion, connivance or conspiracy with some other
corporate/financial institution. The detail of such acts and omissions are stated herein below:-
Recently, Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IBHFL) filed an Insolvency Petition before the
Hon'ble NCLT, Bombay against the SRUIL. IBHFL apart from advancing loans to the SRUIL, has
also advanced various loans to group companies/sister concerns of the SRUIL as part of the larger
dealing. IBHFL by way of demand notice dated 12.03.2015 and 13.03.2015, demanded that all
alleged dues under the concerned loan agreements be paid by SRUIL, failing which, proceedings
would be initiated.
Additionally IBHFL has also issued 7 statutory notices dated 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 under
Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, calling upon SRUIL and its sister concerns to pay the loan
amount, failing which proceedings under SARFAESI would be initiated.
Despite knowing the financial status of SRUIL and having initiated recovery proceedings, IBHFL
funded the project 'Palais Royale' of SRUIL. Again SRUIL hatched a conspiracy and executed
strategy along with IBFHL and said Mr. Avinash Bhosale, MD of M/s Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd. to
defraud government and public at large. The Modus-oprendi of theirs' is as follows:-

I) Mr. Sameer Gehlaut, the Chairman of IBHFL who played role of a facilitator, introduced Mr.
Saket Bahuguna the CEO of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd to Mr. Avinash Bhosale, CEO of
M/s Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd. After various rounds of meetings between Mr. Vikas Kasliwal,
Mg. Director, SRUIL, Mr. Saket Bahuguna representing IBHFL and Mr. Avinash Bhosale
executed an agreement wherein Mr. Avinash Bhosale consented to act for resolving the
impediments in the way of the project Palais Royale of SRUIL.
ii) Consequently, the MOU dated 24.09.2015 was executed between SRUIL and Adhita Realty
Pvt. Ltd. which is a part of ABIL Group and where Mr. Avinash Bhosale was shareholder and
authorised signatory.
iii) According to the said MOU, SRUIL agreed to sell 8 (eight) apartments in 'Palais Royale' for a
total consideration of Rs. 120 cr i.e. Rs. 15 Cr. per flat which is much below not only to the
prevailing market price for the apartments but even to the admitted sale price to other flat
IV) The reading of the text of said MOU discloses that it is not a simple sale-purchase
agreement wherein a party has agreed to purchase a number of flats from a builder who is
facing cash crunch and selling flats at distressed rates. In fact the said MOU does not record
any actual sale-purchase or payment of consideration but contingent upon certain other
activities. Basically it is a liaison agreement which has been given cloak of sale-purchase
V) As per the MOU, M/s. Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Mr. Avinash Bhosale) had undertaken to
obtain Occupation Certificate (OC) from the Municipal Corporation for the project and to
manage for resolving all pending proceedings and complaints filed by M/s. Kalpatru
Properties Pvt. Ltd and statutory bodies.
VII) Interestingly, IBHFL was kept in loop throughout the transaction rather it was facilitator of
the same which is apparent from the fact that once the SRUIL had entered into MOU with
Mr. Bhosale, the IBFL decided not to pursue the notices dated 12.03.2015, 13.03.2015,
20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 which were issued to SRUIL. In addition to this in the past, No
objection certificate was granted by the IBHFL for sale of Flats for more than Rs. 25 cr,
whereas NOC was granted by IBHFL for sale of flats of Rs. 15 cr which was much lower than
the requisite lower threshold.
VIII)Moreover, Mr. Vikas Kasliwal, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Shree Ram
Urban Infrastructure Ltd. has submitted his written submission before the Hon'ble the
National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai in the matter of company petition no.
1519/2017 wherein produced as under:

“9.2. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Financial Creditor, Mr. Sameer Gehlaut, intrdcued the
CEO of the Corporate Debtor to Mr. Avinash Bhosale and further stated that Mr. Bhosale
would be aboe to assist the Corporate Debtor to resolve all the regulatory and other
disputes which the Corporate Debotr was suffering from. By way of various meetings on
14.09.2105, 16.09.2015 and 17.09.2015, it was agreed between Mr. Vikas Kasliwal, CEO
of the Corporate Debtor, Mr. Saket Bahuguna, Chief Legal Officer of the Financial
Creditor and Mr. Avinash Bhosale that Mr. Bhosale would act as a nominee of the
Financial Creditor and help resolve the impediments in the project of the Debtor and
until such time that Mr. Bhosale was a part of the project, the Financial Creditor would be
fully supportive of the Corpoate Debtor.”
9.3. Thereafter, 0n 24.09.2015, a MOU was entered into between the Corproate Debtor and
Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd., a coproate entity which was part of the ABIL Goup and where Mr.
Avinash Bhosale was shareholder and authorised signatory. By way of the MOU, the
Corporate Debtor sold elight apartments in 'Palais Royale' for a total consideration of Rs.
120 crores, which was very below the market rate for the apartments. In return, the
corporate entity had undertaken to obtain occupation certificate (OC) from the
Municipal Corporation for the subject building and further, to assist in resolving all
pending proceedings and complaints filed by M/s. Kalpatru Properties Pvt. Ltd., both of
which were grave impediments to the sustenance of the corporate debtor's business…
9.4. Further, where in the past, NO Objection Certificate (NOC) was granted by the Financial
Creditor for sale of flats for more than Rs. 25 crores, NOC was granted by the Financial
Creditor for sale of flats for Rs. 15 crores, which was much lower than the requisite lower
threshold. This further testifies the existence of an arrangement between the three
In view of the above, the object of the said MOU is illegal. Comprehensive reading of the said
MOU reveals that the same is executed to obtain the requisite permission from MCGM in
respect of the project and to use all tactics to get resolved all the litigations and proceedings
pending before the various courts. Further, it also reveals that having full knowledge of the
project and SRUIL group and their companies and their insolvency, the consideration in the said
MOU were arranged by IBHFL indirectly through sister concerns of Adhita Realty Ltd. Whereas
IBHFL has already issued statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in the
July 2015.
Apparently the said MOU dated 24/09/2015 has been executed for making all efforts including
influencing the government officials and various authorities by doling out monetary benefits
and for that purpose, the discount of Rs. 80 cr (Rs. 10 cr for each flat) is given to Mr. Avinash
Bhosale indirectly by fixing the consideration of one flat at Rs. 15 Cr. despite admittedly a flat is
worth Rs. 25 cr.

Reading of the said MOU reveals that the benefit of Rs. 80 cr is not given to Mr. Avinash Bhosale
for making the payment of Statutory Charges/Challan/other charges for obtaining the
occupation certificate from MCGM and other statutory bodies, as the builder has taken the
responsibility for making the said payments directly. It also reveals that the said MOU dated
24/09/2015, is actually executed for tax and stamp duty evasion as the sale consideration of
each flat is fixed at Rs. 15 cr whereas the market value/fair value of the said flats is more than Rs.
25 cr each which is fixed as threshold price of each flat.
It is stated that said MOU dated 24/09/2015 does not any commercial transaction, it is a
conspiracy against government and innocent purchasers of Flats in Palais Royale project.
On the perusal of the records/documents, the following were revealed:
I) This MOU is a scam of Stamp Duty:-The eight flats were purchased by Mr. Avinash Bhosale
at a consideration of Rs. 15 cr for each flat which is much lower than the requisite lower
threshold of Rs. 25 cr per Flat. There is a scam of stamp duty in the said agreement for total
value of Rs. 80 cr in eight flats. The said liability of stamp duty should be paid by purchaser or
builder / developer to the government. This absolutely a loss of revenue to the government
ii) Planning for tax evasion:-There is planning for tax evasion through said agreement, as eight
flats were purchased by Mr. Avinash Bhosale for a consideration of Rs. 15 cr each flat, this is
much lower than the requisite lower threshold of Rs. 25 cr. The income tax liability on the
difference amount of purchase price and fair value i.e. Rs. 80 cr is clearly being evaded.
“If a property is sold below the stamp duty value/Fair value, the stamp duty value /Fair
Value shall be the deemed value of consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gain.
The original consideration shall not be consider for the purpose of capital gain in the hands
of seller. These provisions seem to have been enacted to curb the menace of black money in
property transactions.
Tax evasion is the illegal evasion of taxes by individuals, corporations, and trusts. Tax evasion
often entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting the true state of their affairs to the tax
authorities to reduce their tax liability and includes dishonest tax reporting, such as
declaring less income, profits or gains than the amounts actually earned, or overstating
Tax evasion is an activity commonly associated with the informal economy. One measure of
the extent of tax evasion is the amount of unreported income, which is the difference
between the amount of income that should be reported to the tax authorities and the
actual amount reported.
In contrast, tax avoidance is the legal use of tax laws to reduce one's tax burden. Both tax
evasion and avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a
range of activities that intend to subvert a state's tax system, although such classification of
tax avoidance is not indisputable, given that avoidance is lawful, within self-creating

I) Role of IBHFL in the said conspiracy: - Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd arranged the fund of
Rs. 120 cr. regarding the consideration of the said MOU dated 24/09/2015 to Mr. Avinash
Bhosale and the same were paid to SRUIL. Despite of knowing all facts of the project and
SRUIL group and their companies and their insolvency proceeding, the consideration in the
said MOU were arranged by IBHFL indirectly. Whereas, IBHFL had already issued statutory
notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in the July 2015.
Moreover, SRUIL has already mortgaged its entire project in favour of IBHFL. Further, in the
past No objection certificate was granted by the IBFHL for sale of Flats for more than Rs. 25 cr,
whereas NOC was granted by IBFHL for sale of flats of Rs. 15 cr which was much lower than the
requisite lower threshold.
IV) Offence under Prevention of Corruption Act: It is also revealed that the said MOU dated
24/09/2015 was entered and executed for making illegal efforts through providing some
bribes to the government officials and various authorities. As, the benefit of Rs. 80 cr (Rs. 10
cr for each flat) were given to Mr. Avinash Bhosale indirectly. It is a fit case for investigation
to ascertain as to whom said amount of Rs. 80 cr was distributed and given as undue
It is also revealed that the said net benefit of Rs. 80 cr to Mr. Avinash Bhosale was not for
making the payment of Statutory Charges/Challan/other charges for obtaining the occupation
certificate from MCGM. As per the said MOU dated 24/09/2015, the builder (SRUIL) was
responsible for making the said payment directly.

V) Bogus/Forged Transaction: It is pertinent to note that on the perusal of records and
documents available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Balance Sheet for
the financial year ended 31st March 2014, filed by Adhita Realty Pvt. Ltd., it is crystal clear
that the net worth of the said company was only Rs. 64,789/- there was no business in the
said company. There were a negative reserve and surplus upto Rs. 1.30 cr. however, to show
the positive net-worth, they have booked one entry of Rs. 1.30 cr showing as borrowing
from shareholders/directors.
In the financial year ended 31st March, 2015, there is also no business in the company and
other income of Rs. 1.5 cr were booked with proper disclosure of the same. By which they tried
to make the positive net worth of the company only.
In the financial year ended 31st March, 2016 i.e. the year of executing the above MOU dated
24/09/2015, the company had shown in their balance sheet that they have obtained the loan of
Rs. 36 crores from Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited for 60 months and simultaneously they
invested the amount of Rs. 27.33 cr in their partnership firm namely ABIL Propcon. Despite,
they have mentioned in their balance sheet that they have obtained an amount of Rs. 30 cr as
an advance from customers whereas there is no business and no assets in the company.
Now, it is submitted that in a collusive proceeding initiated by Action Barter Private Limited
before Company Court Bombay, the provisional liquidator has been appointed in SRUIL vide
order dated 05/10/2016 and 24/08/2017 who has taken symbolic possession of the property of
the company. Simultaneously, IBHFL has also filed a insolvency petition before the NCLT,
Mumbai against SRUIL to show their bonafide recovery against the SRUIL.
From the above, it is stated that now IBHFL, Action Barter and promoters of SRUIL are trying to
liquidate SRUIL in collusion with each other as they have already siphoned off the funds. All the
above persons / entities are actively involved in the said conspiracy. Ultimately in all this
episode, there has been a loss to government exchequer and grabbing of public money by the
people named hereinabove and it necessitate thorough and proper investigated by proper
authority like Central Bureau of Investigation.

Refuge Area – A must to secure one’s survive in the High-Rise Building | UHRF

Refuge Area – A must to secure one’s survive in the

High-Rise Building
by Admin | Sep 19, 2017 | United Human Rights Federation | 6 comments

“Refuge Area” – The last line of defense of

  skyscraper is at stake now!!!

Refuge areas are areas in a high-rise building where common people can hide or take shelter in case of any
fire accident or emergency. Though there is an extreme need of these areas for which Government has also
mentioned strict code for building development in National Building Code (NBC) but these areas are often
misused by Developers, contractor, architectures etc. who surreptitiously try to convert them or use the space
into habitable areas for their maximum profit and selfish motives. In most cases, such developments are sold
to buyers who illegally stay or utilize them for residential or commercial purposes.

Whether or not any building is commercial or residential; if the buildings cross the height of seventh floors in
any metropolitan city of the India the building shall be recognized under high-rise buildings where as per NBC
code, a refuge area must be present on the seventh floor. Also, the Terrace Floor of the building will be
considered as “Refuge Area”.

As per the new Rules, a Refuge Area must be provided at every 7th habitable floor exactly after the first 24
meters of the building. The Refuge Area also must be provided within building line at floor level. For high-rise
buildings having more than 30 meters heights, the first Refuge Area shall be provided at 24 meters or at 1st
floor. After that, the Refuge Area shall be provided at every 7th habitable floor.
The Refuge Area must have a door painted or fixed with a sign in luminous paint mentioning “REFUGE AREA”.
As per the stated rules, refuge areas are designated exclusively for the use of temporary shelter and the use
of Fire Brigade Department or also for exercises/drills if conducted by the Fire Brigade Department.

Though it was mentioned strictly that “REFUGE AREA” cannot be used for any entertainment activities or other
events like Indoor game, yoga class etc. but a continuous violation in each and every high-rise building is
continuously been seen at most of the high-rise buildings in Mumbai, Delhi etc. It is found that many societies
rent this flat for a party or conducting classes which are not permitted as per fire & safety act 2005 MC or
some builders add these areas into their construction project as the luxurious construction of flower beds,
voids etc, to sell the apartment to have maximum profit as they can gain. Any builders or society can go to JAIL
if anyone complaint with proof that any builder has misused the Refuge Area for illegal construction or prove
that MC has rented this area.

After all, There is nothing important than safety and precaution of lives of common people. We can live in
skyscraper only if, “Building Stays Firm, Citizen Stays Safe”.

Refuge Area – A must to secure one’s survive in the High-Rise Building | UHRF

Raunak Bokhre on September 19, 2017 at 7:32 am
Is this happening in all states or just in metropolitan cities???


Krishan Chowdhury on September 19, 2017 at 7:38 am

Why authority is not cross checking it?? I mean if they do the violation can be easily checked
and proper action can be taken.


Bhaskar Nandi on September 19, 2017 at 7:40 am

But that is not the solution Krishan. That is just checking. But what about stopping this illegality
from it’s root?


Rishi Singh on September 23, 2017 at 5:26 am

Can anyone please explain why this is so important for nation’s growth!!!


Jhanvi Reddi on September 23, 2017 at 5:31 am

If Refuge Area is compulsory for the skyscraper then why builders are so stagnant about it and
still they are able to get away with violation!!!


Rahul Kakapuri on September 25, 2017 at 11:45 am

If Refuge Area such important for human lives, it should be taken care of and supervised


UHRF – the only voice of reason against the sins of “Palais Royale” | UHRF

UHRF – the only voice of reason against the sins of

“Palais Royale”
by Admin | Sep 14, 2017 | United Human Rights Federation | 5 comments

UHRF – the only voice of reason against the sins of “Palais Royale”
The ultimate battle b / w  justice and illegality of development of the 21  century

There are many cases in the high-rise building or skyscraper development and construction process where
fire safety norms are not complied with, which may result in disaster for the occupants. One such example is
that of a high-rise residential building, Palis Royale in Worli Mumbai where fire safety norms
are blunted flouted by developers for commercial gains. Palais Royale is a skyscraper being built at Worli
Naka, Lower Parel Mumbai.

With regards to the unauthorized constructions & misuse of Refuge Area in the project Palais Royale,
the main issues, challenges & submissions in the Public Interest Litigation No. 43 of 2012, filled by
Janhit Manch and others V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors was broadly categorized as:

Public Parking Lot (PPL) and Stop Work notices;

Main residential building and the commencement certificates;
Refuge Area and Fire Fighting arrangements ;
Compensation for setback area;
Height of habitable floors;
Passages at manor level;
Service floors;
Amenity floors;
FSI of Duplex floors;
Other issues like servant toilets, structural columns, toilets at the duplex level, flower beds etc.


The UHRF has learned from their thorough research that the entire project ‘Palais Royale’ is now mortgaged
in favor of Indiabulls Limited for 1335 cr. Then how the individual flats can be again mortgaged other
Banks? This is a case of a double mortgage by the Developer SRUIL.   Besides, it is absolutely illegal to
mortgage the project with Indiabulls Ltd since the building Palais Royale has been erected using leasehold
as well as freehold lands.
The project Palais Royale is marred with unethical transactions as some of the flats have been allotted to
the Auditors of the developer company as well as to its Architects. How one can expect a fairness in the
transaction if such illegal and unethical practices were adopted?

UHRF – the only voice of reason against the sins of “Palais Royale” | UHRF

As stated earlier above, the right and interest of several flat purchasers who have purchased space in
the project are at stake due to the illegalities & irregularities being committed by the developer in
connivance with the officials of the municipal corporation and other local civic agencies. Ultimately, it is the
flat owners/purchasers who fall prey to such wrong and illegal activities of the developer company.  In the
wake of Campa Cola Compound Case also of Mumbai, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held the
construction of buildings at the compound as illegal and ordered demolition of such flats and apartments.
The company SRUIL, its officials and MCGM by their aforesaid acts of omission and commissions have left
the Flats buyers in a pity state having dark future.

On the basis of UHRF’s comprehensive research and analysis on Palais Royale case with all related documents
received from various sources which proof the illegal constructions at Palais Royale, the UHRF, one and only
sole body has briefly described all the unauthorized and illegal construction carried out by the developer
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd and its associates and request to take strict action against all the violators
and presented it to various government authorities, entities and ministries. With their day and night effort,
UHRF is trying to be the light of example which only makes us realize that enough of tolerating the illegal
activity it’s time to act on it together as one. After all,

One who commits a crime and who tolerates it, both are criminal and equally guilty!

Priya Aggarwal on September 14, 2017 at 9:24 am
What about other Organization?? Where are they? Just because they are big organization that
does not mean that all crime committed by them could be overlooked. Good work UHRF. Keep
it up.


Krishan Chowdhury on September 14, 2017 at 9:29 am

OMG!!! How come common people don’t know this?? All these violation in just one
construction project. Then what about all other construction happening in the nation!!! who is
supervising them!!


Sujoy Bose on September 19, 2017 at 6:23 am

What is happening in the country? Now Real Estate is also under hub of illegality!!!


Ÿ There has been a nexus between SRUIL and the officials of BMC/ MCGM. The said Palais
Royale is full of gross illegalities & irregularities and the said project / building as the same is
being constructed unauthorisedly even by using extra FSI (which they were not entitled to
and is without any authority/sanction) and in violation of the rules and regulations framed
in this regard and with active connivance and collusion with the officials of BMC/ MCGM.
Ÿ As per the records available from the BMC/ MCGM, it is revealed that an area admeasuring
2442.87 sq. yds. situated in C.S. No. 289 of Lower Parel was acquired by Bombay Municipal
Corporation for widening the road near Mill premises. The BMC paid compensation for the
same to SRUIL in the year 1976. As per the BMC records specifically in the letter dated
08.08.1992 issued by SE (Survey), Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to Mr. M.K.
Kelkar, Architect of SRUIL, it was clearly mentioned that area admeasuring 2442.87 sq.yds.
along Fargusson Road i.e. G. Kadam Marg has been handed over and compensation paid.
Ÿ It is surprising that despite the information vide letter dated 08.08.1992 of SE (Survey),
MCGM of making compensation to SRUIL, the Asst. Engineer, Acquisition (City), BMC vide a
letter dated 16.06.1993 informed Mr. Kelkar that their request to avail of FSI advantage in
lieu of setback land comprised in C.S. No. 289 of Lower Parel Division handed over free of
cost to the Municipal Corporation on 15th March, 1976, will be considered. After a period of
about 8 years, the A.E. (Maint.), G/South, MCGM vide a letter dated 25.09.2001 informed
E.E.B.P. (City), MCGM that the set back area of 2442.87 Sq. Yards along G.K. Marg has been
taken over by their office in the year 1976, however, monetary compensation is not paid.
Ÿ It is pertinent to mention that the possession of the setback area was taken over by Bombay
Municipal Corporation in the year 1976 and the compensation was paid to the owners /
SRUIL, then in what manner the surrender of land for setback was termed as “free of cost”
to Bombay Municipal Corporation as appeared in subsequent correspondence with the
SRUIL? It appears that the officials of BMC and SRUIL have collusively and clandestinely
labelled the land as given “free of cost” just to take advantage of the FSI later on at their
project 'Palais Royale'.

Ÿ The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in its speaking order dated
12.09.2013, on the issue of FSI in lieu of setback area, while calling officers from the ULC
Department has also confirmed producing of the said letter dated 08.08.1992 before him by
ULC Department. However, the Commissioner MCGM has observed that in the absence of
conclusive documentary evidence, the FSI advantage in lieu of handing over the set back
area cannot be considered at that stage.
Ÿ The absence of “conclusive evidence” as mentioned in the Speaking Order dated
12.09.2013 of the Commissioner MCGM signifies missing of documents concerning
handing over possession of the land and receiving of monetary compensation by SRUIL. The
files and details regarding the handing over – taking over and payment of compensation etc.
were found not available in the office record of EEB (City); being the same are missing or
misplaced. Later, taking advantage of it, SRUIL despite having received compensation
availed extra FSI in the year 2013 in lieu of that and consumed the said extra FSI available, in
their said 'Palais Royale' project by concealing true facts and by misrepresentation. This is a
serious FSI fraud on the part of the SRUIL because of which the total FSI of 1,20,000 sq.ft.
could not be developed by UPPL leaving a shortfall of 37,985 sq.ft. FSI.
Ÿ The acts and conduct of the officials of the MCGM and the SRUIL are illegal and of gross
misconduct and require thorough investigation. This is a serious FSI fraud collusively
committed by SRUIL, its officials and the officials of BMC/MCGM and investigation of which
is already being done by Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. A letter dated 06.07.2013 was
issued under RTI from Dy.Ch.Eng. (B.P.City) to the Addl. Police Commissioner, ACB
confirming complaint about compensation received by SRM/SRUIL and mentioning of the
files/ records and register No. 26, 28, 32 & 36 which are still in the custody of ACB and the
ongoing investigation in the matter.
Ÿ It is stated that lots of documents of UPPL concerning transactions of 1,20,000 sq. ft FSI,
Bhiwandiwala Building and Commercial Area projects have been misplaced from the
records of BMC/MCGM. However, M/s. UPPL has been able to obtain some documents/
records through RTI. It is believed that there exists a huge nexus between SRUIL and its
officials with the officials of MCGM and it is apprehend that documents / records time to
time filed with MCGM might have removed from the office of MCGM leaving meager
evidence left with MCGM. \
Ÿ The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai now a day has become a notorious place of
corruption. There are lots news reports / articles about the rampant corruption at

An IA No. 116638 has been filed by Palais Royale Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed)
in Transferred Case No. 271/2016 allegedly represented by 44 members holding 60 flats in the
project Palais Royale. The said I.A. and affidavit filed by the proposed Society is misleading
whereby they have not only mis-represented and concealed the facts from this Hon'ble Court
but has also misused and abused the process of the judicial system. The Applicant has further
learnt that the said proposed intervener has stated that 'majority of the members' of the
Society owns residential houses up to 43rdfloor and admitted that there is dispute only over
the consumption and quantum of Refuge Area.
Admittedly the Developer has merged the 'Refuse Area' with the flats and sold the same to the
flats purchasers despite their knowledge right from the beginning that the merging and selling
of the refuge area is unauthorized and illegal. Thus, the alleged flat buyers (Interveners) are
trying to take advantage of the illegalities of the developer with malafide. Moreover, the
expression 'Majority of the Members' has deliberately been used to mislead Hon'ble Court by
making submission that there exists only 44 members of proposed Society.
The proposed Society has deliberately concealed the true fact by not mentioning the Flat
Number, Floor Number, Area of Flat(s) etc. which could have been easily done had the intent of
the intervener proposed Society is bonafide. The intervention application of the proposed
Society seems to have been moved with an ulterior motive. Interestingly, huge number of flat
buyers / purchaser has been intentionally left out of the intervention application filed by the
proposed Society.
The intervention application of proposed Society is nothing but a deliberate attempt to obtain a
favourable order in favour of the proposed Society and the developer petitioner by presenting
contrived facts.
That the said proposed society has given a list of flat buyers of Palais Royale, which shows that
there are just 35 flats up to 43rdfloor, whereas the proposed Society has filed/ made
Intervention regarding 60 flats. This absolutely is a misleading submission by the proposed
Society and is an attempt to regularize the extra 25 flats unauthorizedly constructed by the
developer beyond the 43rd floor.
Further, the documents available on the website of the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai, gives an
absolute contradictory picture where 115 flats in total were shown transacted / sold by the
developer petitioner from time to time. The list/ detail of flat buyers prepared by the
intervener/ applicant shows that there are 54 flats upto 43rd floor and 61 flats which are
beyond the 43 floor.

Question No. 1-
Why the Mumbai Corporation of Mumbai (BMC/MCGM) should not demolish the excess 13
floors constructed in Palais Royale building of the developer SRUIL since the same have been
constructed without permission.
Question No. 2-
Since the 13 floors beyond 43rd floor are constructed without permission were why the BMC
has not taken any action against the developer SRUIL when these floors were being
constructed? Why BMC / MCGM has not objected for the same at that time?
Question No. 3-
Why there was / is not a “stop work” notice issued against the errant developer of SRUIL by the
Municipal Corporation ?
Question No. 4-
How can the illegalities of the project be compounded by levying of fine / penalty of Rs. 160
crores by the Commissioner of BMC by the developer company?
Question No. 5-
How can the Refuge Area meant for fire safety be allowed to merge with the saleable area of the
flat in project Palais Royale?
Question No. 6-
The developer is not holding ownership rights over the entire land of project Palais Royale. How
can a leasehold land and freehold be allowed to merge for the project Palais Royale?
Question No. 7-
Why the flat buyers have not objected to the developers of Palais Royale for merging their flats
with the Refuge Area ?
Question No. 8-
Why should not criminal case / FIR be registered against the promoter / directors of the
developer company for such illegalities and violations?
Question No. 9-
It is learnt that the Flats in the project Palais Royale of SRUIL have been mortgaged twice. How
can double mortgage be allowed to the developer?

Question No.10-
Why not the banking license of IBHFL should be immediately cancelled by the Reserve Bank of
India and the script of the said company should be delisted from recognised stock exchanges
where the same are listed?
Question No. 11-
Why should not an SIT be constituted for thorough investigation into the affairs of all the
companies of developer SRUIL?
Question No. 12-
Why not the scrips / shares of the developer company be immediately delisted from recognised
stock exchanges where the same are listed and all license granted to SRUIL be cancelled?
Question No. 13-
How can a liquidation order has been passed against the developer company as there was / is
no liability of one M/s. Action Barter Pvt. Ltd. against the project?

‘Palais Royale’ – India’s
tallest building’s fate in HC hands BMC set to take hammer to
Infrawindow News Bureau | Mumbai | Aug. 23, 2012, 12:53 PM JK House at Breach Candy
The Times Of India | TNN | Aug 22, 2015, 03.01 AM
The Bombay High Court will decide the fate
of Palais Royale at Worli naka-touted to be MUMBAI: A museum offering a
India's tallest building. A PIL filed by NGO breathtaking view of the city from the
Janhit Manch, seeking a stay on the upper floors of the controversial 37-
constructuion, has alleged violation of rules storeyed JThe news comes as the
in the proposed luxury building where flats civic administration is all set to order
are between 8,000 and 14,000 sq ft each. the demolition and sealing of four
"If the rules have not been followed, then the refuge floors meant for fire safety,
building has to go," argued senior advocate which are likely to be misused.
Navroz Seervai, who along with advocate
Jamshed Mistry represented the petitioner.
Palais Royale, constructed by Shree Ram
Urban Infrastructure Limited (SRBIL) on
the land earlier owned by Shree Ram Mills
Ltd, will rise to over 300 metres, while the
tallest building is the twin Imperial Towers at
254 metres in Tardeo.


Mumbai Mirror | Oct 11, 2012, 02.26 AM IST

One of south Mumbai's plushest residential

projects, Palais Royale, is in deep trouble, with
the BMC raising questions over the legitimacy of
almost half of the skyscraper in an affidavit filed
before the Bombay High Court.
T he affidavit, filed in connection with a PIL by
NGO Janhit Manch which has sought a stay on
Palais Royale's construction, the BMC has
pointed out that the building's refuge area at
5,73,165 sq ft is almost as large as its habitable
area of 5,88,967 sq ft.

HC fines builder and NGO HC to decide fate of India's
Rs 1 lakh each for delays 'tallest' building
Dec 08 201 5 : The Times of India (Mumbai) Shibu Thomas, TNN | Aug 23, 2012, 03.10AM IST

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on MUMBAI: The fate of Palais Royale, the
Monday directed Janhit Manch and under-construction skyscraper at Worli
the developer of Palais Royale, one naka-touted to be India's tallest building
of the largest residential projects in will be decided by the HC. A PIL filed by
the sland city , to pay a fine of Rs 1 NGO Janhit Manch, seeking a stay on the
akh each. The NGO will pay cost for constructuion, has alleged violation of rules
delaying the hearing of a petition by in proposed luxury building where flats are
developer Shree Ram Urban between 8,000 and 14,000 sq ft each.
Infrastructure Ltd, which was
expedited by Supreme Court. The
developer will pay for moving the
acting Chief Justice to review his
order tagging the NGO's PIL to its
In the original PIL by Janhit Manch,
challenging the plan, the HC REWORK PALAIS ROYALE’S FSI
referred it to the civic chief on By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | May 14, 2013, 05.20 AM IST

certain issues.The NGO moved SC Faults the developer for availing

and while t was pending, the excessive FSI for the 56 storey building's
commissioner passed his order refuge area, but holds a public parking lot
allowing certain aspects of the built by the company legal The Bombay
plan.The developer challenged this High Court on Monday delivered its
o r d e r. O n S e p t e m b e r 7 , S C judgment in an FSI violation case against
expedited the developer's matter. Worli's Palais Royale — handing the
The NGO's plea to be added as a developer a small victory, but at the same
party was rejected. It then filed a PIL time ordering the municipal
challenging amendments to DC commissioner to rework 56 storey
Rules regarding parking plots. skyscraper's FSI.

India’s Tallest Residential Building
May Have To Rework Its FSI
Sep 19, 2013: CommonFloor

Palais Royale located in Worli,

Mumbai has many firsts to its credit.
The project is a tall hotel, commercial
and residential tower developed by
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure. It is
currently touted as the tallest
residential tower in India.The building
is India’s first precertified LEED
Platinum rated green residential
building. The building is also the first
building in India to have fastest
elevators that travel 7 meters/second
and the building is at a breathtaking
height of about 300m. On its
completion, it will also be the world’s
first environmental sustainable
However, a report from Brihan-
mumbai Municipal Corporation
(BMC) based on High Court’s
directive may force the developer of
the residential tower to rework its plan.
According to BMC’s orders, areas
within buildings exempt from Worli
Naka buildings’ FSI must now be
The project
The project will have 100 apartments
with areas of 8,700 sft and 14,000 sft
(almost 90 floors high). Palais Royale
will have world class amenities like a
cinema house, spa, three swimming
pools, badminton court, cricket pitch
and a soccer field.

Mills and boom Mumbai’s tallest tower
Sheela Raval May 8, 2000 | UPDATED 17:25 IST likely to be in trouble
Infrawindow News Bureau | Mumbai | Jun. 21, 2012, 03:04 PM
Mumbai textile mill owners find ways of
turning industrial wasteland into gold mine The construction work of the tallest
residential tower in the financial hub of
Mumbai textile mill owners find ways the country, Mumbai, the 56-storey
of turning industrial wasteland into Palais Royale in Worli, could be in
gold mine Ghost town. Rust belt. trouble if allegations made in a public
Symbol of industrial decay. These are interest litigation (PIL) filed in the
some of the epithets Mumbai's Bombay High Court are proved.
downtown Parel had come to acquire
since the death of the traditional textile The PIL by NGO Janhit Manch has
industry in the 1970s. alleged several illegalities in sanctions
for the construction undertaken by
Thanks mainly to high production Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure
costs, competition from smaller mills Limited (SRBIL). According to the
that have lower overheads and a PIL, the constructions on the 28, 409
debilitating tax structure, most of the sq m property “are beyond the
textile mills in this area have either commencement certificate (CC) and in
closed down or have been declared deliberate breach of the stop-work
sick after they piled up huge losses. notices dated July 16, 2011 and
That penurious past is fast becoming December 14, 2011 and a demolition
history in Parel. The tide that took in its notice of December 19, 2011 under
ebb jobs and investment out of Parel is section 53 of the Maharashtra
beginning to reverse. Regional Town Planning Act, 1966”.

Mumbai's tallest building hits snag, PIL filed

Infrawindow News Bureau | Mumbai | Aug. 25, 2012, 11:30 AM

Mumbai’s tallest building has hit problems in

construction. The residential tower Palais Royale
in Worli, designed by Talati & Panthaky
Associates with Lehr Consultants and RWDI
Engineering, is facing an attack from city-based
NGO Janhit Manch for ‘blatant irregularities’ in

Worli skyscraper caught in mill land owner-builder dispute
TNN | Sep 23, 2013, 03.12 AM IST

MUMBAI: The decade-old land dispute storey tower. SRUIL has accused Kunte
between the Kasliwals, owners of the of working at the behest of Kalpataru and
defunct Shree Ram Mill, and builder NGO Janhit Manch,which, it said, is a
Kalpataru has now spilled over into the front for Kalpataru. Alleging a slew of
controversy surrounding construction of building violations, the NGO had filed a
Palais Royale, one of India's tallest case against SRUIL. The HC while
residential tower, at Worli Naka. rejecting several points raised by the
Last week, Vikas Kasliwal's Shree Ram NGO, directed Kunte to review excess
Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL), which areas in the tower.
is building the 320m tower, filed a Though construction has already reached
petition in the Bombay high court against the 56th floor, the civic administration
a report by municipal commissioner S J said that the tower had permission only up
Kunte. The report's findings could reduce to 43 floors and that the developer had not
the height of the under-construction 56- approached it for further clearances.

Blow to India's tallest skyscraper BMC CHIEF ASKS PALAIS

as 13 upper floors deemed illegal ROYALE TO REWORK FSI
TNN | Jan 28, 2016, 04.41 AM IST Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Sep 1 7 , 201 3, 05.54 AM IST

MUMBAI: In a fresh setback for The BMC chief has ordered the
India's tallest skyscraper, Palais Royale developer of Worli's Palais Royale,
at Worli, the Bombay high court on once touted as the city's tallest
Wednesday held that the 13 upper residential tower, to rework the
floors of the 56-storey building as well building's floor space index.
as a 15-storey public parking tower Sitaram Kunte has asked Shree Ram
next to it were "completely illegal". Urban Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL) to
A division bench of justices Abhay Oka include the 56-storey skyscraper's
& CV Bhadang called their construction controversial refuge area and other
a "brazen defiance" of rules, & has left it spaces that were earlier exempted
to the municipal commissioner to decide from FSI in the revised plan.
the fate of structures.

Bombay high court stays civic sanction Bmc Wants To Seal Palais
to refuge areas on Palais Royale decks Royale’s Excessive Boltholes
TNN | Jan 28, 2016, 04.41 AM IST By Chaitany a Marpakwar, | Updated: Sep 1 3, 201 6

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court, in an City reports to Bombay High

interim order on Friday, stayed municipal Court that Worli tower's refuge
commissioner Ajoy Mehta's order and area is 74 per cent of its total
restrained the BMC from sanctioning fire builtup, and should be cut to
refuge areas on the decks of Palais Royale, about 25 per cent.
India's tallest residential building, at Worli The country's tallest residential
Naka. Hearing a public interest litigation complex Palais Royale, which
filed by NGO Janhit Manch challenging the allowed itself a refuge area
commissioner's August 2016 order, a almost three-fourths of its
division bench of Chief Justice Manjula tremendous 5.5 lakh square
Chellur and Justice Girish Kulkarni gave metre area in Worli, will have to
the BMC three weeks to file its affidavit in bring it down to about a quarter of
the matter. the built-up by sealing the four
refuge floors as well as the refuge
pockets on every storey.

BMC reworks FSI of tallest

residential tower
TNN | Sep 17, 2013, 08.05 AM IST

MUMBAI: A high court-directed report

prepared by the civic administration could
force the developer of Palais Royale, touted
as India's tallest residen-tial tower, to
rework its plan.
The BMC has ordered that areas exempted
from the Worli Naka building's floor space
index (FSI) be now counted as part of it.
FSI is a ratio that determines how much can
be built on a plot.
The under-construction tower, planned up
to 320m, was embroiled in litigation
following allegations of building

Builder says rival using BMC chief to scuttle skyscraper
By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Sep 20, 2013, 01.16 AM IST

The controversy surrounding Palais

Royale, one of the city's tallest residential
buildings under construction, has taken a
new turn with its developer accusing
Municipal Commissioner Sitaram Kunte
of stalling the project at the behest of a
rival real estate firm.
In a petition filed at the Bombay High
Court on Monday, just days after Kunte
asked the developer Shree Ram Urban
Palais Royale; (Inset) Sitaram Kunte Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL) to cut the 320-
metre tall building's size by almost half,
In petition filed in high court, developer the construction firm said the municipal
says Sitaram Kunte is taking orders from commissioner is taking orders from real
direct competitor. estate giant and its direct competitor
Kalpataru Properties Private Limited.

Mumbai's municipal commissioner

finds irregularities in granting
concessions to a skyscraper
TNN | Mar 13, 2014, 09.11 PM IST

MUMBAI: A wag once said that

behind every skyscraper there is a
crime. In Mumbai, they have
proliferated in a haphazard manner
over the past 15 years, mainly due to
arbitrary permissions given by the local
civic administration.

By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Feb 5, 201 7 , 04.55 AM IST

petitions in the Bombay

High Court.
In one such petition, the
bench of Chief Justice
Manjula Chellur and
Justice MS Sonak
delivered a setback to the
company by asking it to
deposit Rs 18 crore,
failing which, the court
said, a provisional
liquidator would be
appointed on the
company. This order,
though, won’t be executed
until the end of this month.
The company behind the plush Palais
SRUIL had, in fact, filed an appeal against
Royale has time until month end to
a single judge’s order of October last year.
comply with the court’s orders.
The judge had then directed the company
The company behind Worli’s plush, to deposit Rs 5.90 crore.
under-construction Palais Royale, which
However, Action Barter Pvt Ltd (ABPL),
has been embroiled in litigation for
the company, in whose petition the order
almost five years, seems to have run into
was passed, too had filed an appeal, and
financial trouble.
the Chief Justice’s bench enhanced the
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd amount to be deposited by SRUIL from
(SRUIL), which is building the apartment Rs 5.90 crore to Rs 18 crore. According to
complex in which duplexes are estimated SRUIL, there was no basis for ABPL to
to cost Rs 75 crore, is facing winding up approach HC via a winding up petition.

TNN | Jul 17, 2014, 12.58 AM IST

Three-judge SC bench to decide fate of tallest residential tower

MUMBAI: The fate of India's tallest three-judge bench of the Supreme Court
residential tower, the 300m-plus Palais after two judges hearing the case delivered
Royale at Worli, will now be decided by a differing orders.

No HC relief for
Palais Royale builders
TNN | Oct 22, 2013, 02.02 AM IST

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court

has refused to grant any interim relief
to developers of the city's tallest
building Palais Royale in Worli. A
division bench of Justice S C
Dharmadhikari and Justice Gautam
Patel admitted a petition filed by Shree
Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited,
challenging the order of the municipal
commissioner to reduce the building's
refuge area as well as restrict the size
of the public parking lot.
"Whether the commissioner's order is
in consonance with the view of the
division bench of this court, which
itself is under challenge before the
Supreme Court of India, is a matter
which would require consideration
and interim relief granted without
considering the issues raised would
amount to allowing the writ petition
itself. That is impermissible in law.
Hence, interim relief is refused," said
the judges, scheduling the matter for
final hearing on November 25.
Earlier this year, the HC had refused to
order demolition of the building, but
asked the commissioner to consider
the refuge area granted to the building,
which it termed as excessive. The
commissioner had directed the
developer to reduce the building's
refuge area FSI from the current 70%
of the total construction to just 4%.
This would have meant demolition of
the upper floors of the building.
TNN | Oct 22, 2013, 02.02 AM IST
Under the state government's
MUMBAI: The developer of Palais Royale, c r o s s - s u b s i d y p o l i c y, t h e
India's tallest residential building (294 m), will developer received permission to
have to pay the BMC Rs 162 crore as premium and build a 15-storey parking tower
penalties for constructing a 15-storey public in 2010, which it has to hand over
parking tower at Worli Naka without permissions. free of cost to the BMC for public
Municipal commissioner Ajoy Mehta last week parking. In return, the developer
ordered the levy after the Bombay high court will receive additional
directed the commissioner to decide its fate construction rights in the form of
following a petition challenging its legality. incentive floor space index (FSI)
for the residential tower named
The controversial project has been embroiled in
Palais Royale.
litigation for the past four years after NGO Janhit
Manch dragged the developer, Shree Ram Urban However in 2011, the BMC
Infrastructure Ltd (SRUIL), to court for large- changed its policy, restricting the
scale violations. The NGO said the public height of public parking lots up to
parking tower is illegal. four floors.

By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Jan 28, 2016, 05.31 AM IST

Infrastructure Ltd was

patently illegal. The Court
directed the BMC
Commissioner to
recalculate the permissible
FSI, and issue a demolition
order for the portion that is
found illegal.
Shree Ram Urban
Infrastructure Ltd began
planning to construct a 15-
storeyed parking in 2009,
after the government
announced to increase
planned parking lots in the
city, which allowed the
HC says that only 43 floors of the 56- developer to add another 13 floors to the
storey building are legal; asks BMC 46-storey building. Even though
Commissioner to issue a demolition order. permission to construct the planned
The Bombay High Court set aside the parking lot was granted only until the
'deemed permission' for a 15-storey plinth, the developer went ahead and
public parking lot for the Palais Royale constructed all of the planned parking lot
building in Worli and declared that the and extended the building to 56 floors. The
construction of the 56-storey residential limit for the planned parking lot was later
building beyond 43 floors by the brought down to just four floors, but the
developer Shree Ram Urban developer argued that there was "deemed
permission" and it was thus legal.

be the tallest building in the metropolis

after completion.

Mumbai:PIL seeks demolition Senior Advocate Navroze Serwai,

of under-construction tallest bldg petitioner's lawyer, argued before the
division bench of Chief Justice Mohit
Press Trust of India | Mumbai August 22, 2012 Last Updated at 19:20 IST
Shah and Justice N M Jamdar today that
Janhit Manch, the NGO, has filed a PIL developer Shree Ram Urban
alleging irregularities in the construction Infrastructure Limited (SRBIL) "has
of `Palais Royale' in Worli, which would indulged in a blatant breach of rules".

Dead in Mumbai fire: Two brothers visiting from
US and the aunt they were trying to rescue
January 01, 2018

the Kamala Mills complex in the

central Mumbai neighbourhood of
Lower Parel. Hours later, a bruised
Doshi was standing in the smoke-filled
compound, praying for the safety of her
sister and two nephews. A fire had
broken out during their meal, trapping
three members of Doshi’s family.
Families of 14 victims of restaurant The blaze spread within seconds,
blaze in Kamala Mills complex Doshi said, and the partitions between
struggle to cope with the tragedy. the tables started collapsing, causing
“She never steps out, but I told her to chaos. “I could only see those large
come and have some fun.” That is how flames and hear people screaming,”
Bharti Doshi persuaded her sister recalled Doshi, who is on a visit to the
Pramila Kinya to join her and the other city from the US, where she lives. “My
members of the family at dinner on husband and I ran towards the
Thursday night at a restaurant called staircase.”
1Above on the rooftop of a building in

Over 100 BMC officials

face enquiry, action
January 01, 2018

MUMBAI: More than 100 BMC

officers and engineers could face
inquiry and action for allowing illegal
alterations and encroachments in resto-
bars, pubs and restaurants in their
jurisdictions. The dereliction of duty
has come to the fore after the BMC
found violation of rules at more than
600 establishments in the city and
demolished illegal alterations like the
terrace being converted into resto-bars
on Saturday and Sunday.

Lookout notices against pub
owners, safety glare on eateries Narrow entrance, debris make
across Mumbai mill compounds a fire hazard
January 01, 2018 December 31, 2017

MUMBAI:The 1Above blaze that left

14 dead has brought the spotlight back
on the vibrant redeveloped mill
compounds of central Mumbai that are
seen as potential fire traps due to
"haphazard planning".
TOI visited some of the mill
compounds on Saturday and found that
most had narrow entrances, there were
no clear route maps of emergency exits,
Mumbai: Mumbai's civic body and piles of debris and combustible
launched a fire safety drive a day after a material lay beside construction work
blaze killed 14 people at an upscale for upcoming eateries and pubs.
dining spot, razing illegal structures at “The mills have several eateries, and
314 sites and sealing seven hotels, the every week a new restaurant or a pub
upcoming New Year revelries adding opens up here. Most are small and
urgency to the crackdown. crammed spaces and the entry and exits
Police issued lookout notices against are so narrow that no fire engine would
Hitesh Sanghvi and Jigar Sanghvi, be able to get in, in case of a blaze," said
co-owners of 1 Above, the rooftop Sameer Bhagtani, a software engineer
pub where the fire is suspected to have who frequents the area.
started. Officers said notices would
be issued against other missing
accused too.
On Friday, the police had booked the
Sanghvi brothers, fellow co-owner
Abhijeet Manka, and several others on
the charge of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and other
Civic officials inspected 624
restaurants, pubs and malls across the
city and its suburbs, demolished illegal
structures at 314 sites and seized 417
cooking gas cylinders, a release said.

Fire dept., BMC probe fire cause, politicos make rounds of site
December 31, 2017

Mumbai: A day also engulfed Mojo’s Bistro, a pub a storey

after the Kamala below. Most of the victims died of
Mills blaze asphyxiation.
claimed 14 lives, K.V. Hiwrale, Deputy Chief Fire Officer,
fire brigade officers said, “There are multiple reports from the
said they were media on the possible cause of the fire. We
probing if a fire need to be absolutely sure. The
s t u n t b y a investigating team would be taking into
bartender, burning account eyewitness accounts.”
coal used for
hookah or a short A fire department officer added, “We are
circuit led to the tragedy. The blaze had probing if the flames created during a fire
started after 12.30 am on Friday at the ‘1 stunt by a bartender at the pub came in
Above’ pub on the terrace of Trade House contact with plastic sheets that covered the
Building in Kamala Mills compound in bamboo structure and triggered the blaze.
Lower Parel, a commercial hub, resulting We are also trying to find out whether the
in collapse of its bamboo-propped canopy. burning coal used for hookah at the
The fire, which left several people injured, adjacent restaurant led to the tragedy.”

Kamala Mills fire: Another fire in Mumbai, 10 days, 23 km, a little apart
TNN | December 31, 2017

A little over three hours after the early

Friday morning fire at 1Above resto-bar
and the adjoining Mojo’s Bistro, Mumbai
Municipal Commissioner Ajoy Mehta
was at the site, taking stock of the
situation. The following afternoon, Chief
Minister Devendra Fadnavis examined
the premises and hours later, Mehta Over 10 days earlier, on December 18, a
ordered the suspension of five civic fire no less deadly had swept through
officials and the transfer of one. The Bhanu Farsan Shop, a savouries unit on
Mumbai Police registered a case of Saki Naka’s Khairani Road, about 23 km
culpable homicide on Friday and has filed from Kamala Mills. Twelve workers had
four FIRs so far. died in the fire.

Kamala Mills fire: Another fire Morning after blaze, BMC targets
in Mumbai, 10 days, 23 km, a illegal structures at restaurants
little apart December 30, 2017
December 31, 2017
Mumbai: The Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation (BMC) took
action against four restaurants with
unauthorised constructions in G
(South) Ward on Friday, following the
fire at Kamala Mill Compound.
A BMC spokesperson said civic teams
demolished illegal structures in Sky
View Cafe and Social Hotel in Kamala
NEW DELHI: A day after a massive
Mill Compound and Panayaa, Fumes
fire at a Mumbai pub killed 14 people,
and Sheesha Sky Lounge in
Delhi Fire Services officials on
Raghuvanshi Mill Compound. Ward
Saturday conducted surprise checks at
officials said the demolitions will
two major eating hubs — Connaught
continue on Saturday. Seven open-air
Place and Khan Market — in the
restaurants were under the ward
NDMC area.
officials’ scanner, including 1 Above
More checks will be conducted across and Mojo’s Bistro, which were gutted
the city to find out the actual seating on Friday. The BMC will also carry out
capacity of each restaurant and a report an extensive audit of major eateries in
will be sent to the three corporations the city ahead of New Year’s Eve.
and New Delhi Municipal Council Municipal Commissioner Ajoy Mehta
(NDMC). Officials said they would has directed all ward-level assistant
also place fire engines near these hubs commissioners.
to control small blazes.