Sunday, 18 February 2018

FRWA- FAQS BY BUYERS BASED ON HARASSMENT BY BUILDERS


KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
PRESIDENT
FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
08860332402
FORFORWA@GMAIL.COM



FAQs by buyers based on harassment by builders

May these answers be construed as prima facie basic responses based on the limited information provided to us as on date by the members and members are advised to consult their Legal Counsel as well

Q. 1 If a person has been given the possession letter after a delay can he file the case for interest but he has not taken the possession?
Ans. 1       Yeshe can file a case for claiming interest for delay in granting Possession.

It is however advised that the Buyer should take possession if the construction is complete in all sense to the satisfaction of the Buyer and then the Buyer can proceed with taking action against the builder for claiming interest for delay in possession.

It is a common practice that even before the flats are ready, developers roll out the “Offer of Possession“. The actual possession of apartment happens after months of making final payments. Sometimes the possession is delayed further for reason like no Occupancy Certificate etc. Developers may give various excuses like the fitting and fixtures shall only be installed after final payment.[1]

The consumer / flat buyers cannot be forced to accept possession of the unit, offered at a belated stage, in the absence of any force majeure circumstances.[2]

It is also to be noted that in case a person / consumer denies to take possession of their property on being offered the same from the builder, a concrete reason / deficiency needs  to be pointed out  to enable the consumer to later accept the possession and claim interest for delay also.  

Q.2   What happens to a person who has taken the possession after a delay, having signed the indemnity bond?

Ans.2 Indemnity bond shall be executed by the Builder in favour of the buyer/s. Hence signing of Indemnity Bond is in the interest of the buyers.

Q. 3  One person bought the property from another and got a delayed possession. Can he file the case?   He has taken the possession.

Ans. 3      Yes, The subsequent buyer steps into the shoes of the previous buyer and hence all the  rights and entitlements which the previous buyer would have claimed, the subsequent buyer would be entitled to the same. In any case, the subsequent buyer would ‘buy the risks’ inherent with a property and that is the reason the subsequent buyer would usually purchase the property at a higher rate.

The answer to this question depends on the time when the re-sale was given effect to. Although the Subsequent Buyer of the Property has the right to claim interest from the builder but the rate at which such claim can be made depends upon the time when the re-sale happened.

Q.4   A person was offered possession four years beyond the delivery period and he is not taking possession because he wants interest what happens to his case.

Ans. 4      The answer to this question is same as that of 1. The claim for interest will survive irrespective of whether possession has been taken or not by the Buyer.


Q.5.  What happens to a person who has two properties? Will it be termed as commercial or he will be considered a consumer on the act.

Ans.5        Please refer to the judgment of Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995, Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583. The person may not be considered a consumer in the eyes of law. At times however if the property has not been bought from the same builder, the builder may or may not make this claim of the buyer/complainant owning second property.

A buyer who already has 2 Properties will be considered as a consumer under the act provided the Buyer does not trade in buying and selling houses on a regular basis for commercial gains.

Q.6   What happens to a person who is living in his own house and this is second or third property in his own name. Does he still get the interest inn case of delay in handing over possession and the Buyer denies taking the possession: the question was whether the Buyer can file a case for claiming Interest?

Ans.6       The answer would be same as above. (Please refer to answer to the question 5 and Laxmi Engineering Judgment)

Q.7   Under which section is a buyer covered under the Consumer Protection Act/Rules.

Ans.7        In terms of Section 2(1)(d)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Q. 8.          If the builder whose services are engaged by a buyer for construction of a residential house for him fails to complete the construction and deliver its possession on or before the date committed by him for the purpose, would such an act on the part of the builder be termed as an act of negligence, causing loss or injury to the flat buyer.

Ans. 8       Yes, The term “negligence” has not been defined in the Consumer protection Act but as per its dictionary meaning, it is the failure to give enough care or attention especially when such an act has serious results to another person.   (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, New 8th Edition).  As per Black’s Law Dictionary IX Edition, negligence includes the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation.
Hence in the absence of force-majeure circumstances, a prudent builder would have been in a position to construct the flats and offer their possession to the buyer on or before the date committed or at best within the grace period under the BBA.  By not delivering on the commitment made by it with respect to the delivery of the possession of the flats booked by the buyers, the builder certainly commits an act of negligence and since the said act of negligence results in loss or injury to the buyer who is deprived of the use of the flats booked by them, compensation in terms of 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act may be awarded to the buyer.

Furthermore since the Act empowers the Commission to direct removal of the deficiencies in the services,  in exercise of the afore said power of the Commission, the builder can also be directed and in fact ought to be directed to complete the construction and deliver possession of the flat to the buyer at the earliest possible.  Therefore both the directions sought by the buyers viz. direction for completion of the construction and delivery of possession of the flats and the direction for payment of compensation for the period, the possession is delayed are within the competence of the NCDRC under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Such a delay on the part of the builder would tantamount to deficiency in service in terms of 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Q. 9 Would it be correct to say that the buyer approaching the NCDRC are asking for specific performance of the Agreement the buyers executed with the builder.

Ans.9. No, the specific performance of a contract can be sought before a Civil Court in terms of the provisions contained in the Specific Relief Act 1963.  Neither is the NCDRC a Civil Court not do the buyers invoke the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Q 10.         Is the person entitled for interest as compensation if he has bought the property in re-sale?

Ans. 10 Yes, the buyer steps into the shoes of the original buyer and hence is entitled for the   interest as compensation.

Q. 11         The builder first takes three instalments as advance and then sends the BBA for signatures which the buyer is bound to sign.  The time period of construction mentioned in the BBA starts from the date BBA is signed.  Is the person entitled for the interest for the first three instalments till the time the BBA is signed?

Ans. 11     Interest is usually awarded on the payment made which is calculated from the date of deposit till the date of realisation of the amount ordered by the Forum/Commission.
However interest on refund is treated differently from interest on delay. On delay the interest is usually awarded from the date of promised date of possession.

Q.12 Is giving the money as advance to the builder tantamount to acceptance of the offer and hence a contract is established

Ans. 12 Yes. A contract is certainly established. The builders are known to treat the buyers as captive buyers and hence they are left with no option but to dance to the tune of the builder. Thus in BBA the buyers don’t usually get any opportunity to negotiate the terms of the Agreement which goes contrary to the spirit of an enforceable contract.

Q. 13         What is the limitation within which you can approach RERA or NCDRC after having taken the possession?

Ans 13.To invoke Consumer Protection Act the limitation is 2 years from the date of cause of action whereas to invoke RERA the limitation is as per the Limitation Act, 1963 i.e. 3 years. It is to be noted that in terms of Section 19(10) every allottee is supposed to take physical possession of the property within a period of two months of the occupancy certificate issued by the government. It is advisable to invoke Consumer Protection Act in such situations where the defect/deficiency is on account of some latent defect in the property.

Q. 14         Should a consumer approach the State under RERA or go to the National Consumer for Relief.

Ans.14      It would depend upon the relief sought. At the moment jurisprudence related to RERA is still in the infancy and much has been left to the discretion of the authorities. At the same time however RERA can conduct investigation etc. whereas Consumer Fora cannot do that. Owing to a developed jurisprudence of Consumer Protection Act however the ease of handling of litigation is much more in Consumer Protection Act than RERA

Q. 15         Since the pecuniary limit of National Consumer Court is Rs. one Crore, can few flats owners asking for Possession and Interest  or Principal & Interest approach National Consumer if their combined value is more than Rs. One Crore.

Ans. 15 Yes under 12(1)(C) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Q. 16   Can an Association file a case on behalf of its members before the National Consumer  

Ans.16  Yes, under 12(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act

Q.17  Can an Association file  case before the State RERA.

Ans. 17     Yes, under 12(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act. Please refer to Amrapali Judgment CC/816/2016 upheld by SC in Civil Appeal No. 10882/2016  

Q. 18         In view of the clauses stipulating per sq.ft compensation per month by way of penalty, would it be considered as the upper limit of the compensation which can be awarded to the complainants, in the event of builder not giving the possession as per the dates mentioned in the BBA.

Ans.18      The aforesaid compensation is a unilateral and patently unfair term imposed by the builder upon the flat buyers.  Having already paid the booking amount to the builder, they become captive buyers and thus have no other option but to sign on the dotted lines, since the failure to execute the agreement unilaterally drafted by the builder and imposed upon the flat buyer is likely to result in the booking amount being forfeited by the builder.  Therefore, executing an agreement containing such a term is nothing but a consent given under coercion and cannot be said to be the result of the exercise of a free consent on the part of the flat buyer.  Moreover, a term to pay such a paltry compensation to the flat buyer in the event of default on the part of the builder, while making him pay exorbitant interest in the event of default or delay on his part is an absolutely unfair term.  In fact the incorporation of a term for payment of a paltry compensation to the buyer in the event of the failure of the builder to deliver possession within the time period committed by him had become so wide spread and rampant that the Legislature had to step in by enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 to statutorily require the builder to pay compensation in the form of interest at prescribed rate in the event of the possession being delayed or the buyer deciding to quit on account of the delay on the part of the builder in delivering upon the promise made by him.  Hence irrespective of the clauses in the BBA, the buyer is entitled to a just and fair compensation for the period the possession of the flats is delayed by the opposite party.

If a paltry compensation of say Rs. 10 per s.ft per month is awarded against a builder, it may lead to dangerous consequences since the builder may be tempted not to complete the construction and divert the money collected from the flat buyers for other purposes. Paying such a meagre compensation would be a win-win situation for a builder who is likely to pay many times more if he goes to market for arranging finances which he gets by diverting the money collected from the flat buyers to other purposes.

Q.19. What is the normal compensation being awarded by the NCDRC – National Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum.

Ans. 19.    Simple interest @ 8% per annum  with effect from the committed date of possession till the date on which the possession was given or is actually offered.

Q 20.  Till what date is the interest given?

 Ans. 20.   Till the date on which the possession is actually offered and not till the date of the Occupation Certificate.

Q 21.         What is the grace period which the builder is entitled while computing the committed date of possession.

 Ans. 21.   There is no entitlement. However usually the terms of the BBA incorporate  a grace period of 3 months/6 months. It is to be noted that this grace period is a matter of agreement between the two parties i.e. builder and the buyer. Hence the builder may as well insist on no grace period.

Q. 22.        Is the compensation payable adjusted out of the additional amount, if any payable, by the complainants to the opposite party?

 Ans. 22    Yes. Usually the courts direct adjustment of the amount.

Q. 23             Is the balance amount, if any, to be paid to the builder before the flat is offered. 

Ans. 23.        The balance amount is payable while offering possession of the flat.

Q 24.         In case a possession has been taken, does the court still award the compensation and within which period is it payable to the buyer.

Ans. 24.  Yes, the buyer is entitled for compensation even if he has taken the possession and the amount is payable to him within three months of the order of the Commission. 

Q. 25         Does the Court order the cost in favour of the buyer.

Ans. 25     Yes the court has been ordering the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 25,000.00 in   respect of each complaint.

Q.26.         Is the existing BBA applicable in respect of projects under RERA. 

Ans. 26     No, for such projects the BBA has to be approved by the Legislature. Most of the ongoing projects have been kept out of the purview of RERA and As per section 13(2), the appropriate Government is required to specify through Rules the ‘Agreement for Sale’ to be entered into between the promoter and the allottee. This Agreement is binding on the parties, however, internal flexibility could be provided in the said Agreement for Sale, for determination / insertion of other provisions as decided between the parties for mutual benefit. Hence the existing BBA are not applicable with respect to projects under RERA.


Warm Regards 


Kuldeep Kumar Kohli 


[1] Read more at The Logical Buyer's blog: Pay delay penalty till actual possession – No more “Offer of Possession” http://www.thelogicalbuyer.com/blog/?p=1416
[2] Megh Raj vs M/S Omaxe Chandigarh Extension, SCDRC Chandigarh

FRWA- RERA VERSUS CONSUMER COURTS

KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
PRESIDENT
FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
08860332402
FORFORWA@GMAIL.COM   




May these answers be construed as prima facie basic responses based on the limited information provided to us as on date by the members and members are advised to consult their Legal Counsel as well.

RERA VERSUS CONSUMER COURTS

88. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Hence section 88 of the RERA states that the application of other laws is not barred due to any provisions of RERA.

Therefore, consumer forums are not civil courts as proposed to be barred in RERA (section 79). Further, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation has also clarified that the consumer forums have “not been barred from the ambit of “RERA.

Any aggrieved person can approach either the Regulatory Authority under RERA or appropriate consumer forum (for matters covered under RERA).

Recently, in an order the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Maharashtra RERA) rejected complaints filed by six home buyers against a developer on the grounds that they did not disclose that they had filed similar complaints before the Bombay High Court.


We must keep in mind that as a thumb rule, our laws do not permit forum shopping. Hence, an aggrieved party can only approach one of the two tribunals for disputes over the same matter.


Warm Regards 



Kuldeep Kumar Kohli 

Thursday, 15 February 2018

FRWA INNOCENT BUYERS BEING HARASSE BY BUILDERS

KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
PRESIDENT
FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
08860332402
FORFORWA@GMAIL.COM 


   




Let us fight for our right


On a mission to file 3 Lakh cases before Rera/NCDRC 
to Help innocent owners


Dear Friends and Supporters and cheated home Buyers,

These very notorious and influential builders when confronted by we honest home buyers and the noise that we now create for the inordinate delay in getting our flats, having paid most of amount, will have to bow before us. We all will go all out legally duly supported by our team of lawyers with bare minimal expenses as we all want to get justice for the truth.

Also, it is high time that we all who have been cheated get personally involved in eliminating this cheating cancer spread by several cheat builders ruining 3,00,000 families. While the cheating certainly is more pronounced in Haryana/NCR, several other states are also affected making it an India issue.

Through our revered Supreme Court, High Courts, NCDRC and the law is doing its best but time for every individual to start fighting for his right and eliminate such cheating. If many builders have to wind up, so be it after auctioning off everything to pay back home buyers besides life time imprisonment. I look up to you all to kindly learn to fight for your rights and I will support you till the end ensuring you get justice. 

The legal rights of the buyers are increasingly getting recognised and grievances are being addressed and they should exercise their legal rights and seek fair just compensation from the builders in case of delayed projects.

The judiciary has started going beyond the technicalities of the agreements and awarding compensation to buyers. In ALL THE cases recently, judges have rejected one-sided agreements, citing them as unfair trade practices.
Earlier, whatever was written in the builder-buyer agreement was held sacrosanct BUT NOT NOW.

One thing is very clear now that buyers can certainly take recourse to law against unscrupulous builders and seek just compensation in case of delay in offering possession of flats.

Consumers should not be deterred by one-sided agreement favouring builders, nor should they be deterred by superior financial position of the builder as the law is with the common man. Consumer Courts and Apex Court have come to the rescue of hapless buyers against the builders in cases of delayed project
In most of the cases delay in delivery varies from a minimum of one year to five years and in some cases, even more.

In a recent case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked a real estate major to pay buyers compensation at the rate of 12 per cent a year for delay in delivery of flats, overruling the builder-buyer agreement that had set the rate at a mere 1.8 per cent a year. NCDRC said any unfair trade practice can be challenged by it, even if there is a prior agreement between the parties. The best part is that if the apex consumer court, NCDRC, passes such an order, it's binding on the lower courts.

After the buyers dragged DLF to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), things have changed. CCI found the builder the dominant party in the agreement, so, the terms and conditions of the agreement were not held as sacrosanct. Consumer courts started using this line of thought and applied it more widely in builder-buyer cases.

In a landmark ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked real estate major Unitech to pay buyers compensation at the rate of 12% per annum for delay in delivery of flats, overruling the builder-buyer agreement that had set the rate at 1.8% per annum.

The order came in a case filed by 24 buyers of a housing project, Vistas, in Sector 70 of Gurgaon. The buyers alleged that they had booked the flats in 2009-10 and delivery was promised in 36 months.

In his order, Justice V K Jain directed the company to pay compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount paid for the period from the date of delivery originally promised to the new date.

The NCDRC also ruled that any delay beyond the new deadline promised would draw a compensation of 18% per annum. Hence the sooner we get the deadline fixed by the Honourable NCDRC, the sooner the interest rate to be paid to us would go to 18%.

In order to ensure that the opposite parties honour the revised date of delivery of possession, compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 12% per annum should be paid by the developer if the revised date of delivery of possession is not honoured is what has been ruled by the Honourable NCDRC.

Landmark judgement

This situation would have continued in India but for the landmark judgement of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Satish Kumar Pandey Vs. Unitech Ltd. delivered on 6th June, 2015. The National Commission minutely scrutinised the clauses of Builder-Buyer agreement in the above case and held that a term of above nature in Builder-Buyer agreement is wholly one sided, unfair and unreasonable. National Commission also held that such a practice constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The National Commission held in the said case that builder charges compound interest @18 per cent per annum in the event of the delay on the part of the buyer in making payment to the builder but seeks to pay less than 3 per cent per annum of the capital investment is nothing but it is unfair trade practice within the meaning Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as Builder adopts unfair methods or practice for the purpose of selling the products. National Commission in the said case awarded compensation at rate of 12 per cent per annum for period of delay in offer of possession from the schedule date.

The commission awarded 12 per cent of interest on the ground that the cost of borrowing for individual home buyers is about 11.5 per cent and thus, it would take care of the additional financial burden on the individual home buyers on account of delay in handing over the possession of the flat purchased by them.

The commission also directed that if a builder fails to deliver possession by the last date stipulated in extended period, thereafter, it would be pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent.

The National Commission has recently passed similar order in series of cases namely Santosh Johari and Others Vs. Unitech Ltd, Satinder Pal Singh Bawa Vs. Sahara India Commercial Co. Ltd., and Sahara Grace Consumer Grievance Association Vs. Sahara India Commercial Co. Ltd. and Others, Jivitesh Nayal & ANR Vs M/s Emaar MFG Land Limited & ANR, Chhavi Mohna Bhutani & ANR Vs M/s Emaar MFG Land Limited, Rahul Kumar Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Rohit Sahai & ANR Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Sangeeta Sharma Vs M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited, Kumar Rishabh & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, Rohan Sharma & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, Kumar Vaibhav & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, Rajan Datta Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, Shaloo Srikrishna & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited, Salil Mohan Gupte & ANR Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited.

Even the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Amita Dhanda and others Vs. Emrald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association on 30.7.2014 ordered the builder to pay the entire principal amount along with 14 per cent compounded annually in a case where the High Court has directed the authorities to demolish the tower constructed in violation of law.

Warm Regards

For FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION


KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
PRESIDENT


Tuesday, 6 February 2018

IDEA- Representation to Ministry of Defence





06.02.2018

Lt Gen Giriraj Singh, SM
Director General,
Ordinance Services,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
Room no. - 200,
A – Wing, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi


corrigendum number 08

rEQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE LAST DATE For SUBMISSION OF RFP upto 31.03.2018 from 12.02.2018
         
Request for Proposal (RFP) No A/18231/Elect Fz Arty Amn//MApI/OS-Amn Proc Published on 11.01.2018 vide corrigendum number 08 issued by master general of ordnance branch, Directorate General of Ordinance Services, os – amn proc, room no. 211/206, 2nd floor, d-ii wing, sena bhawan, integrated hq of mod (Army), dhq po, Ministry of Defence, Government of India for supply of 4,99,400 quantities of electronic fuze for arty gun systems


Dear Sir,

We are herewith enclosing a copy of our letter dated 18.01.2018 which was sent to you earlier requesting you for extension of the last date for submission of rfp up to 31.03.2018 from 12.02.2018.

We also wish to mention that the Corrigendum to the RFP now issued dated 11.1.2018 appears to be self -contradictory as per the details given below:

(i)          Bid submission end date has been mentioned as 12.2.2018 and bid opening start date has been mentioned as 13.2.2018 in the corrigendum whereas under column 13 of the RFP at page 12 it has been mentioned as under.

Clarification Regarding Contents of the RFP – A prospective bidder who requires clarification regarding the contents of the bidding documents shall notify to the buyer in writing about the clarification sought not later than four weeks from uploading of RFP.  Copies of the query and clarification by the purchaser will be sent to all prospective bidders who have received the bidding documents by the buyer.  A pre bid meeting will be held on ……..at south block.

(ii)        This therefore means the time given for seeking clarification is four weeks from the date of issue of the RFP.  The RFP has been issued on 11.1.2018 and four weeks ends on 8th February 2018. 

(iii)       After 8th February it will be circulated to all prospective bidders and this process would also take another four to six weeks.   This would bring us to the third week of March 2018.

(iv)       After this a pre bid meeting would be held and the date for the same has to be finalised by your office as it has been left blank in the RFP issued on 11.1.2018 but we presume it would be sometimes in the first week of April 2018.

(v)         And subsequently the final clarifications would be issued to all and a date fixed for submission and opening of the RFP.  This means the RFP opening would get postponed till end of April. 

(vi)       This therefore implies that the bid opening cannot take place on 13.2.2018 as mentioned in the corrigendum issued on 11.1.2018.

In view of above we would request you to kindly provide us with the dates for pre bid meeting  and the final date for submission of the RFP and opening of the same, which as per above calculations would be end of April 2018.

Looking forward to your kind cooperation and an early announcement on the dates for pre bid meeting and extension of the date of submission of RFP

Warm Regards
For Infrastructure Development Entrepreneurs’ Association (IDEA)

Kuldeep Kumar Kohli
President
07011306364

Copy to:

Maj Gen Shantanu Dayal, SM, VSM
Additional Director General (Procurement),
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
Room no. 209, A - Wing Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110011

Maj Gen Rajesh Rana, VSM
Additional Director General
Ordinance Services,
Technical Stores,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
Sena Bhawan, 212, D - II Wing,
New Delhi – 110011

Brig Sanjay Mitra
Deputy Director General,
Procurement,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
Office of ADG Procurement,
Room no. 213,
A - Wing Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110011

Col Ravi Madhok
Director,
Procurement,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
Office of ADG Procurement,
A - Wing Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110011

Lt Col Devesh Singh
Director,
Ordinance Services,
Amn Procurement,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
Office of DG (OS),
211/206, D-II - Wing

Sena Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

Friday, 19 January 2018

FRWA - REPRESENTATION TO REGISTRAR GENERAL, FIRMS AND SOCIETIES, HARYANA






KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
PRESIDENT

19.01. 2018

Registrar General
Firms and Societies,
Department of Industries and Commerce,
Room no. 7,
30 Bays Building, 1st Floor,
Sector – 17,
Chandigarh

Reference our letter dated 28th September, 2017

Dear Sir,

Federation of Residents welfare Association (FRWA) has been formed with the aim to represents the interests of RWAs in order to create civil society pressure group as united people’s voice to achieve availability of effective and efficient essential services and facilities for the city of Gurugram.

We have the following request to make for your kind consideration: 
1.   One major problem being faced by the members is that for every clarification / appeal the members have to go to Chandigarh from Gurugram. It is therefore requested to kindly hold the appellate office of the State Registrar of Firms and Societies in Gurugram once in a fortnight / month to avoid inconvenience to the members of the societies of travelling to Chandigarh for all appeals / clarifications.

2.   Since the issues being dealt by the District Registrar relates to Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies / ACT 2012 and requires legal interpretation of various provisions of the HRRS Act / Rules 2012, we request you to kindly position an officer at the office of District Registrar, Gurugram with certain legal knowledge.

3.   Kindly also ensure that there is no inordinate delay at the office of District Registrar, Gurugram in responding to the complaints being filled in his office.

We shall be grateful for an urgent resolution of these issues

Thanking you

Yours faithfully

For FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION


KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI
PRESIDENT

Tuesday, 16 January 2018

IDEA - REPRESENTATION TO MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY






11.01. 2018

Shri Suresh Prabhu
Hon’ble Minister,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India,
Udyog Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110001

Subject: WEBSITE OF Make in india.com comes under MINISTRY OF commerce and industry, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR A LONG TIME

Dear Sir,
The website of Make in India.com comes under Ministry of Commerce and Industry under sector IT and BPM and many more sectors contains provision of 2015-16 union budget under heading financial support and hence gives a feeling of not having been updated for a long period.

You will appreciate Sir, that the Website of Make in India.com is a living, breathing entity on the internet. Every update you make to your website once it is “live” on the internet plays a part in its interaction with visitors, customers, and the powerful search engines.  However, a static website without updates of any kind may be viewed by search engines as a “dead” entity – with no life and nothing new to offer.

A frequently updated website offers search engines a heaven for fresh content and sources of new information for their search requests.  Simply put, if you update your website often with high quality content, search engines will love you for it.

There are many other reasons as to why it is important for your website to be updated frequently with fresh content.

We would therefore request you to kindly update your website.

Warm Regards
For Infrastructure Development Entrepreneurs’ Association (IDEA)

Kuldeep Kumar Kohli
President
07011306364




Sunday, 7 January 2018

IDEA REPRESENTATION TO MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS







03rd January, 2018

Shri Dharmendra Pradhan
Hon’ble Minister,
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,
Government of India,
A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110001

Subject: WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM and NATURAL GAS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR A LONG TIME

Dear Sir,

The website of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Contains information upto December 2014 and hence gives a feeling of not having been updated for a long period.

You will appreciate Sir, that the Website of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is a living, breathing entity on the internet. Every update you make to your website once it is “live” on the internet plays a part in its interaction with visitors, customers, and the powerful search engines.  However, a static website without updates of any kind may be viewed by search engines as a “dead” entity – with no life and nothing new to offer.

A frequently updated website offers search engines a haven for fresh content and sources of new information for their search requests.  Simply put, if you update your website often with high quality content, search engines will love you for it.

There are many other reasons as to why it is important for your website to be update frequently with fresh content.

We would therefore request you to kindly update your website.

Warm Regards

For Infrastructure Development Entrepreneurs’ Association (IDEA)



Kuldeep Kumar Kohli
President