SPEED POST/COURIER WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DATED:-

To

Noticee no 1-M/s Mangalam Properties LTD having its

registered office at shop no 2 , Z MOR IGNOU Road, Neb

Sarai, New Delhi

Noticee no 2- Mr Akash Deep Taneja (Director of

Mangalam Properties ) R/o A-1 Birla Farm, A-1 Block Third

Floor, Birla Farms Chattarpur New Delhi (110074)

Noticee No 3 - Mr Vishal Deep Taneja (Director of

Mangalam Properties ) S/o Akash Deep Taneja,R/o A-1

Birla Farm, A-1 Block Third Floor, Birla Farms Chattarpur

New Delhi (110074)

Noticee no 4 – Mr Mitesh Thakur S/o Shri Achhar Kumar

R/o 2106 A, Dhanas Colony, Chandigarh

Noticee NO 5 – Surinder Chouhan R/o A-49,Malviya Nagar

My Client – MR Mr. Siddharth Lal, resident of Flat no. 1602, first

16th floor, Tower no. 13, La Residentia Society Noida Extension,

Bisrakh 201301,

Subject:- Legal Notice for Breach of Agreement to Sale -

Failure to Provide 1 BHK Flat and Demand for Refund with

Interest and Damages for mental agony and harassment

suffered

Respected sir ,

Under the instructions from and on behalf of my above stated

client , I am hereby directed and instructed to issue Demand

Cum Legal Notice for recovery of sum of Rs 4,50,000 ( Rs Four

Lakh Fifty Thousand Only ) owing to non abidance of the relevant

terms stipulated in the Agreement to sale dated 20 th March 2016

to the aforementioned Noticee no 1 to 5 .

1. That our client i.e. Mr. Siddharth Lal S/o MR OB Lal R/o T-2

Flat no 1602, La residencia society, Noida Extension(201301)

is a well-recognized law abiding citizen, of this country and

has been a prominent member of the society.

2. That Manglam Properties ( hereinafter referred to as Noticee

no1) is a seasoned real estate brokerage firm, and had a

long outstanding business relations with my client, father of

my client, knew MR Akash Deep Taneja director of Mangalam

Properties (Herein after referred to as Noticee no 2), as he

acquired a flat through him, and their existed a fiduciary

relationship between my clients family and Noticee no 1

3. That my client intended to buy another property for which it

expressed its interest to Noticee no 1 (with whom my client

had long standing relations ), that he wishes to purchase a

new flat and for the very same purpose, Director of Noticee

no 1 MR Vishal Taneja (Hereinafter referred to as Noticee no

3 ) and s/o Noticee no 2, lured my client with a proposition

on behalf of Mr Mithesh Thakur (herein after referred to as

 Noticee no 4) and Surinder Chouhan (herein after referred

to as Noticee no 5 ) .

4. That, the said proposition embodied an offer for sale of 1

BHK back side flat right side from the stairs at ground floor ,

measuring 50 sq. yards , approx. , comprised in khasra no.

322, situated at village Neb Sarai , New Delhi consisting of

one bed room, one drawing/dinning , one kitchen, one toilet/

bath and one balcony , with common parking space for one

scooter/ bike in this common parking area , along with all

fittings , fixtures, connections and proportionate undivided ,

indivisible ownership rights in the land underneath , together

with the right to use / avail common entrance , staircase,

passages , lift and other common facilities provided in the

building.

5. That the said flat was to be rendered on the Khesra no 322

on which their already existed a building , and it was

promised that the same will be demolished and new

building instead of that would be constructed and

accordingly my client would be allotted his flat, and the

same was crystalized in an agreement to sale Cum Receipt

 dated 20.03.2016, and Noticee no 4 was the Builder with

whom the said agreement was executed whereas Noticee no

3, and 5 were the witnesses and confirming party to the said

agreement.

6. That according to the sale agreement dated 20.03.2016, my

client had to pay a sum of Rs 4,50,000 ( Rs Four Lakh Fifty

Thousand Only ) as the booking amount for the aforesaid

flat, and the same was paid vide Cheque No “000020”

110240029: 020651 dated 20.03.2016 and debited from

account on 22.03.2016 and credit to the account of Noticee

no 4, its further pointed out that Noticee no 3 received the

said cheque in the capacity of first confirming party to the

said agreement and his signature on the said cheque

establishes that beyond doubt.

7. That its worth mentioning at this juncture that Noticee no1

and both its directors gave assurances to my client on the

basis of past fiduciary relation that, the said property has

been scrutinized by Noticee no1 in its professional and

personal capacity, and the flat is free from any

 encumbrances, and the delivery of the same is expected

within a reasonable time, whereas they clearly knew since

the very beginning of the events that, no building was ever

going to be built on the said plot.

8. That, Noticee no 4 rendered his promise in clause 1 of the

agreement dated 20.03.2016, to render my client with a flat

(as described in the para 4) on Khesra no 322 within a

reasonable time, whereas it has been more then eight years

since the execution of the said agreement to sale, and no

work in pursuance of the said agreement has been carried

out by Noticee no 4 and 5 , even the old building which was

to be demolished is not yet demolished yet, so the question

of progress in construction work becomes rhetorical.

9. That, being aggrieved by the blatant breach of the terms of

the agreement to sale dated 20.03.2016 by Noticee no 4 and

5 ,my client tried to contact and get the same remedied,

vide various written and oral correspondences with Noticee

no 3 to 5, but all he was offered was surmises and

conjectures, all the records of the aforesaid correspondences

noticee no 3 to 5 always assured my client that their would

 make good their obligations under the agreement dated

20.03.2016 I lieu of which my client rendered the amount of

Rs 4,50,000 ( Rs Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Only ) .

10. That its worth pointing out at this juncture, that from

the appreciation of the aforementioned facts it seems that

Noticee no 2 to 5 are playing the foul game of hide and

seek, with my client as it was never the intent of the

noticee’s to make good on their obligations under the

agreement to sale dated 20.03.2016.

11. That its pointed out at this juncture that the noticee no

4 deviated from consensus ad idem found in the agreement

to sale dated 20.03.2016, as in lieu of the total consideration

worth Rs 16,25,000 (Rs Sixteen Lakh Twenty Five Thousand

Only) a booking amount of Rs 4,50,000 (Rs Four Lakhs Fifty

Thousand Only ) has been paid, whereas in lieu of the same

not even an iota of obligation on noticee part has been

discharged by him, which is prevalent from the fact that

even the demolition of old building on the plot, where new

building is to be done has been done yet, and thereby it

would be sufficing to say that the noticee no 4 defaulted on

 its obligations and blatant breached the terms of contract

dated 20.03.2016

12. That on the anvil of the very same it is pointed out that

invocation of clause 4 of the said agreement to sale dated

20.03.2016 which provides that in case of any loss suffered

by my client owing to the non-abidance bye Noticee no 4, as

the noticee no 4 clearly failed to deliver on his part of

promise under agreement to sale dated 20.03.2016.

13. That it is further pointed out that Noticee no1 is the first

confirming party/broker for the said agreement dated

20.03.2016, which can be established by the stipulation in

para 13 of the said agreement dated 20.03.2016, which also

includes name of Noticee no 2 as he is the proprietor of the

Noticee no 1 along with noticee no 3 who is the son of

noticee no2 , thereby equivocally speaking the clause 13 and

clause 1 shall be read together, and the liability for

indemnifying my clients falls equally on each of the

aforementioned noticee.

14. That, my client availed services of brokerage through

noticee no 1 and in pursuance of the same Noticee no 2 and

 3 scrutinized the said property after due diligence, and

accordingly presented the proposition on behalf on noticee

no 4 and 5, whereas it seems that all the aforementioned

noticee acted in connivance to cheat my client by

misappropriating his property based on the long standing

fiduciary relationship between my clients family and Noticee

no 2.

15. That on the anvil of the very same it would be fair to

say that noticee no 2 to 4 acted in connivance to wrong my

client with a mala-fide intent to misappropriate the funds

received as booking amount for the said property in

pursuance of the terms of agreement to sale dated

20.03.2016,

16. that the aforementioned noticee never had any

intention to perform thereby the charges u/s 409 ,420 and

120 B of IPC and complaint dated 12.04.2023 has also been

submitted by my client to Officer In charge of NEB Sarai

Police Station, New Delhi and if satisfactory response is not

received within 15 days of service of the instant notice,

 criminal action under the aforementioned sections shall be

initiated against the aforesaid noticee.

17. That its further pointed out that clause 8 r/w clause 4

and 12 of the agreement to sale dated 20.03.2016, bestows

my client with a power to initiate action against the noticee

for specific performance under specific performance act or

any other relevant law under whose jurisdiction the instant

set of facts fall, relying upon the same, it is stated that an

action against the noticee o 1 to 5 shall be initiated for sub-

standardized rendered to my client in form of brokerage and

Construction activities, if the amount of Rs 4,50,000 ( Rs

Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) along with an interest of 18

% and a punitive interest of 9 % shall be rendered from the

date of execution of agreement to sale till the date of

payment is received by my client from the noticee.

18. That, Seven copies of the instant legal notice is being

made one each is being served to the noticee and one is

being sent to my client the last copy shall be retained by me

in case of any discrepancy to the demands raised in the

instant legal notice and their arises a need for civil or

criminal litigation.