Gautam Gambhir Troubles Increased: A Delhi court has rejected the acquittal plea of former cricketer and current head coach of the Indian cricket team Gautam Gambhir in a case of defrauding flat buyers. Special judge Vishal Gogane set aside a lower court verdict, saying the charges against Gambhir were not properly considered. In his order, the judge wrote that in view of the allegations, further investigation into Gambhir's role is necessary.
Gambhir is accused of being involved in the alleged fraud as a director and brand ambassador of Rudra Buildwell Reality Private Limited and other real estate companies. The judge said that being a brand ambassador, Gambhir was directly connected to the investors and acquitting him could prove wrong. Also, there is no mention in the order of the transaction between him and the company of giving Rs 6 crore and taking Rs 4.85 crore.
Need to investigate financial transactions
The court found that Gambhir also had financial transactions with the company beyond his role as brand ambassador. Gambhir also served as an additional director of the company between 29 June 2011 and 1 October 2013, and was an office-bearer at the time of the advertisement of the project. The court also underlined that most of the payments to Gambhir were made after his resignation from the directorship, which necessitates investigation into his financial involvement.
prosecution claim
According to the prosecution, Gambhir and other accused companies promoted a residential project named “Serra Bella” in Indirapuram, Ghaziabad in 2011, which was later named “Pavo Real”. The complainants say that they were influenced by the advertisements and brochures and booked the flats and paid lakhs of rupees, but no work was done on the site.
Legal dispute of the project
The complainants allege that despite payment, no structural work was done at the project site. No progress was seen till 2016. Later they came to know that the project was neither developed as per the site plan nor any approval was obtained from the state government. When the companies stopped responding to the complainants' queries, they learned that the site was embroiled in a legal dispute.
Comments are closed.