DSK asked to sell assets, return outstanding dues
DSK, a Pune-based developer, had floated fixed deposit schemes for pensioners and was paying lucrative interests till last year.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed real estate developer DSK to identify saleable properties that can recover the Rs 200 crore outstanding amount that has to be paid to more than 3,000 investors. The builders’ counsel told the court that the company wanted to pay back the investors but as its properties were sealed it was unable to sell them. The court directed the police and the state counsel to oversee the identification of the properties and submit the list to the court next week.
A bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari was hearing petitions filed by investors who had invested money with real estate developer D S Kulkarni (DSK). The petitioners complained that the developer had neither paid them interest nor returned their investment amounts.
On Thursday, the developer informed the court that it wanted to pay back the investors but was handicapped by the fact that its properties and accounts were seized. “There are some saleable properties that we have already received offers for and will be in a position to pay a large number of investors if they are sold. However, in the event of the properties remaining inaccessible we were willing to pay the investors an amount of Rs 15 crore per month,” said the counsel appearing for DSK.
After hearing the submission of DSK the court said that the proposal to pay Rs 15 crore per month was not acceptable and coaxed the developer to identify the best properties that could recover maximum amount of funds to repay the investors. The HC also directed the cops and public prosecutor to oversee the same and directed the developer to submit the list of properties within a week so that they could be sold and the process could be completed in two months.
DSK, a Pune-based developer, had floated fixed deposit schemes for pensioners and was paying lucrative interests till last year. However, after demonetisation the firm defaulted in paying interest, as a result of which complaints were lodged against it, leading investors to approach the court.