Assignment 104E Urgently needed .. Only Correct answer accepted .. Pushpendra Meena is a popular name and face among the farmers of the region where he belongs. He is also a big name in the local politics and is considered as a farmers leader as well. He usually raises his objections to government policies, which are detrimental to the interest of farmers. He is recently in the news because he is critically resisting the recently promulgated ordinances by the government with respect to farm, farmer and agriculture produce. These ordinances are a severe jolt for farmers and middle-class households of the country as per Mr. Meena. He also highlighted the remarks of the competition commission indicating the possible adverse effect on fair competition and unfair price which may prevail due to limit-less hoarding. Such remarks were part of the opinion furnished by the commission during the last week of August 2020 in response to the reference made to it during the 3rd week of July 2020 (the week when ordinances were promulgated). He alleged that the government is ignoring the opinion of the competition commission while enacting the legislation based upon these ordinances. Mr. Ramesh Kataria is a renowned name in the business world, engaged in the businesses of agro-product, real-estate, and transport respectively. The agro-product business, Kataria Agro Limited (KAL) has a presence all across the globe. Considering the afore-mentioned ordinances, the management at KAL which largely rests in the hands of Mr. Kataria being the CMD (Chairman-cum-Managing Director), decided to acquire land for establishing large coldstorage facilities. Mr. Ramesh Kataria along with other designated officers of KAL, during the search of land for the cold storage facility, came across a piece of land which Mr. Ramesh Kataria found suitable for his farmhouse. Such land was owned by Mr. Noor Mohamad Khan. Another piece of land was selected for cold-storage facilities. The piece of land which Mr. Kataria selected for his farmhouse was purchased for ` 4.12 crores in the name of his wife Mrs. Pushpa Kataria from Mr. Noor Mohamad Khan, out of the funds diverted from KAL. Through annual information return of high-value financial transactions, such a transaction of Mr. Kataria came into the knowledge of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) ranging in the jurisdiction in which Mr. and Mrs. Kataria fall into and he issued show-cause notices to both Mr. and Mrs. Kataria under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988 respectively. Further, based upon the response submitted, ACIT issued another notice to him and Mrs. Kataria summoning them to appear at his office and he also compelled the production of books of accounts and records evidenced Just a week, prior to the issue of the aforementioned show-cause notices by the ACIT, the land that was purchased in the name of Mrs. Kataria was sold for ` 4.20 crores because Mr. Kataria was in immediate need of money to pump it into his transport business. Part of the consideration was paid by the buyer in cash. Out of the sale proceeds, ` 2 crores were injected into his transport business. The increase in the cost of operations has made the transport business unprofitable. The transport business failed to revive despite an injunction of ` 2 crores. After several occasions of defaults in payments and repayments to financial creditors, finally, the business collapsed. An application for a fast-track corporate insolvency resolution process was duly filed with the authority and a resolution professional was appointed for the same. The resolution professional finding it difficult to complete the resolution process within the prescribed time limit discusses the same with the creditors in the committee meeting due to which the committee instructed him to seek an extension from the adjudicating authority by way of passing of a resolution to give effect to the instruction with 68% voting share of the creditors who are also in majority in terms of numbers. Out of the sale proceeds of ` 4.20 crores, an amount equivalent to USD 2,80,000 is remitted to Mr. Prince Kataria (son of Mr. and Mrs. Kataria) in foreign currency, who is going abroad for employment. Further, approximately an amount of ` 14 lakhs is kept in cash by Mrs. Kataria in her possession at home. Since in meantime, as they have received a show-cause notice from the ACIT; hence, in anticipation of the search they settled the cash by making advance payment of ` 12 lakhs in cash to Impax Elevators which is going to install the lift in their current house and remaining ` 2 lakhs were deposited in the bank account of their driver directly as an advance salary for 10 months. Mr. Kataria was found to be indulged in some Hawala transactions, as per the reliable and conclusive pieces of evidence available with the Assistant Director, Mr. Kataria was part and party of a series of transactions that involved a significant amount of illicit money in foreign currency and he also assisted in its integration phase. The Assistant Director doesnt have any arrest warrant against Mr. Kataria, but in the belief that Mr. Kataria might become untraceable later on, he arrested Mr. Kataria on 21st September at 10.30 in the morning, and instead of taking him to the Judicial Magistrate, the Assistant Commissioner took Mr. Kataria to the special court on 22nd September at 4.15 PM, after traveling for 6 hours to the court. Pushpa Builders and Infra Limited (PBIL) is a company promoted by Mr. Kataria in the early 2000s. Since then PBIL delivers many world-class residential housing projects. Currently, 3 projects are ongoing. One of these is Green Valley Apartments which was started around 10 years ago. Green Valley Apartments are located in foothills and facing towards the lake, these features made it a big hit. The applications received for the apartments were three times more than its allotment capacity. The allottees of Green Valley Apartments were given apartments not under a transaction of sale, but under an agreement of lease wherein the apartments were leased out to the allottees for a period of 499 years. Mr. Meena, also being one of the allottees paid consideration equal to 99.99% of the sale price of the apartment to get the lease, like the other allottees. It was also agreed that as per the terms of agreement of the lease, each year ` 12 will be paid to PBIL as a lease rental, which is obviously, a negligible amount. As per the Agreement of Lease executed between the allottees and PBIL, the project was to be completed and the possession of the apartments was to be handed over to the allottees within a period of 24 months from the date of the agreement. However, the same did not happen due to occurring of some legal issues as a result of action initiated by the national green tribunal on the basis of a complaint registered regarding the heights and dimensions of the approved project. Allottees held their nerves and waited for the dispute to get resolved because their financial interest in the project was huge as all the consideration was already paid. Finally, that issue was resolved and thereafter multiple rounds of communication from allottees took place, but largely they were unanswered. Around 6 years had passed since the date of the allotment when the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (RERA) came into force. PBIL was also bound to register Green Valley Apartments as per the provisions of the RERA. Soon after PBIL registered the project with the state RERA authority, the allottees approached the Adjudicating Authority with an application under section 18 of the RERA, 2016, for compensation along with interest for every month of the delay in handing over the possession of the apartments and also for various other reliefs. PBIL defends against the claim made by the allottees, by arguing that section 18 is applicable to promoter and not lessor and since the apartments in Green Valley Apartments are allotted in lease form, hence relief prescribed under RERA is not completely available to the allottees (lessees. whether the allottees in the present case can claim a remedy under section 18 of the RERA through the adjudicating authority.