HOT TOPICS
SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES
Why is the link to "code of conduct" on the CREDAI site not functional?
Written By murali772 - 2 October, 2012
Bangalore urban development Citizen Reports accountability sustainable development Group Housing building regulations code of conduct CREDAI
The CREDAI, Bangalore (Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India) site is accessible here. Listed amongst various links on it is one on "code of conduct". But, if you click on it, it just takes you in circles. And, having tried it quite a few times in the past, each time without success, I am now firmly of the opinion that CREDAI has deliberately de-linked it. For all that, even as recently as on 26th Aug, “He (Karnataka CM) appreciated the CREDAI initiatives to come up with its own code of conduct and its enforcement on all its members”, vide The Hindu report, accessible here.
The code of conduct had indeed been written up once, it was put up on the net, and that's how I managed to fish it out. It's accessible here (it was called 'code of ethics'). It is a fairly well-worded document, though quite a few things more could be covered. Apparently, somewhere along however, CREDAI decided to abandon it. The reason for the same can be gleamed from a reading of this report in Sulekha blog, some excerpts from which read as below:
CREDAI national president Lalit Kumar Jain said that the expulsions were owing to the builders' stiff resistance to sign the organisation's ethical code of conduct, mandatory for all the 8,600 members spread across 105 cities in 22 states. As on date, apart from Chennai and Karnataka, Nasik is the only other city where all members of CREDAI are signatories to the code. "Based on requests from other state chapters, their members have been given time until June 30 to sign the document," said Jain.
The revolt, however, has left a dent on the organisation's ongoing mission to create greater transparency in the housing industry as the expelled members are promoters of mega projects including three integrated townships and an IT SEZ in Chennai and its outskirts. Those expelled will not be able to participate in Fairpro, the annual property fair organised by CREDAI, which is a big crowd puller in the city.
- - - A senior executive in the DLF expressed similar concerns. "Even without signing the CREDAI code of conduct, we have been following best practices in the industry". However, Suresh Kumar Jain, MD of Vijay Shanthi, has issues with CREDAI on the clauses in the ethical code. "Our panel of lawyers objected to signing the code of conduct," he said, but refused to elaborate further.
- - - "A code of conduct for the builder community was first mooted by the Chennai chapter of CREDAI two years ago. It gained momentum last year when CREDAI national decided to implement it across the country," said T Chitty Babu, CREDAI secretary. Once a builder signs the code of conduct, the customers enjoy the right to drag him to the grievance redressal forum of CREDAI in case of disputes, he said.
As for DLF's following of best practices, the following comment, which appeared in the ToI, and which can be accessed here, says it all.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI), the free trade regulator, has imposed a penalty of Rs 630 crore on real estate major DLF for misusing its dominant position in the market by drafting one-sided agreements with flat buyers in Belaire housing complex in Gurgaon.
- - - According to the flat owners, DLF violated building restriction norms. Although it had approval to build 19 floors, it constructed 29 floors and cut down the super area, common area and other facilities. Flat buyers also said that DLF announced the project and entered into agreements without getting the required clearances from the authorities. In its order issued on Friday, CCI said the agreement with buyers is not just one-sided but draconian. It has found that the penalty provision in case of delay in project as per buyers’ agreement is discriminatory and favoured the builder.
Now, a significant section of the city's population lives in multi-storied apartment complexes, and their number is multiplying by the day. But, while construction quality is generally satisfactory in most cases, with a large number of them, however, there are all kinds of problems, mostly arising out of non-conformity with the codes, originally drawn up by CREDAI itself, even as they all claim to be members of CREDAI. So, is one then to understand that CREDAI chose to dump the codes in order to retain the membership of the biggies like DLF, who seem to be out there only to exploit the loose regulatory regime, but at the cost of the buyer.
The question that arises then is doesn't CREDAI have a responsibility towards the buyer?
Muralidhar Rao
COMMENTS
vswami - 29 December, 2014 - 03:34
Tentatively observe (on a selective basis):
1. Earlier version put up by CREDAI on its website was named and styled as, -
“CREDAI- Karnataka’s Code of Ethics & Conduct”
And one of the paragraphs incorporating the most significant aspect of all,- but adversely commented on, was that numbered 5.1 and concerned DoD - as long back as on October 8, 2009,-
@ Formation of Apartment Owners Association in Bangalore ...
Now, in the document commended to be a “fairly decent document”
(Ref. “....And, lo and behold, yes, it is active - check here. And, it's a fairly decent document too.”),
which is in form and substance, an inhouse “Resolution”, making for a simply verbose and hollow rhetoric, there is no mention, not even a whisper, on promoter’s obligation to execute a DoD.
Further, it does not cover all vital aspects of the most concern, in clear and specific terms, in such a manner as to safeguard the customers’ lawful rights and interests, as envisaged by / in terms of, the special law.
Many of its contents are clumsily worded- honest guess deliberately done so- to serve no real purpose from the view point of ‘customer’. For instance, look at the paragraph 3. B. to cover “Guarantee as to non-violation”.
In short, it makes for a psychological ploy.
> “Can we now hope that they will join us in our efforts to update the KAOA? I shall make a fresh approach.”
The feedback herein is intended to, and it is hoped, be useful in pursuing the indicated fresh approach.
2. Wrt DIAMOND MINEFIELD, -
“....they were hood-winked into believing that the company share-holdership etc was quite the norm. The lacunae in the Acts also contributed to this, I expect, apart from perhaps the membership of CGDL in CREDAI....”
As to what really is the concept of “company” as envisaged in KAOA, an attempted elucidation in the comments posted @ ·
itatonline.org » Shantikumar D Majithia vs. DCIT (ITAT ... and
ITAT Order in re. Shantikumar D Majithia vs. DCIT ... - TaxGuru.
ALSO
SC Judgment in Hill Properties case – Substance seems to ..
itatonline.org » Hill Properties Ltd vs. Union Bank (Supreme ...
may be looked into.
(To be contd., if so called for)
vswami - 29 December, 2014 - 04:43
growingly targeted for violent changes;
DOES IT NOT CALL FOR a halt and updating ?!
Not Unrelated HERE>
BS NEWS
Ajay Singh: Forty companies, a dispute and some defaults
<> IMPROMPTU: The narrated episode makes for ,-to rhyme with 'tale of two cities' or 'one man company' a novel idea given a legal shape under the new company law – a tell-tale of one man with many ('RELATED', a modern day concept that has increasingly come to be regarded as the proverbial red rag to a BULL (-as personified by the whole lot of so called regulators , or semi- or self-regulators, being SEBI CLB,RBI, ICAI) companies; and, with many fanciful names – ANY THOUGHTS to toe the line , especially from the expected-to-be-concerned government / its authoritative quarters AND/OR company law experts at large?
KEY NOTE
Rightly or wrongly, in the special state laws (of Maharashtra and Karnataka), 'company' has, in addition to the other two namely, 'co-op Society' and 'association', been specified as an entity, for the purcasers of flats/apartments to opt for, in order to having the 'co-owned'prooperty (land and buildings) finally conveyed. Be that as it may, going by wisdom gathered in hindsight,- refer the few decided court cases- the vehicle of 'company' , even in the few instances known to have been so opted for; has been gravely misconstrued, and misused; further, primarily with the ulterior motive of saving on stramp duty. With that in focus, the point of concern requiring to be looked into is, - should not the law be amended to derecognise, by deleting, 'company' for its purposes.
It is noteworthy, the 97th amendment to the Indian constitution, which makes the right to form cooperative societies a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) , as read and understood, speaks of the right to form “associations ...or cooperative societies”. That is, ‘company’ is not a form of entity recognised for the purpose.
A Feedback (to share own thoughts)
vswami - 24 February, 2015 - 04:55
Apropos
CCI's indictment
".....Noting that the sector lacks "MARKET PRESSURE" to prod the players to improve their services,..." – This observation is not to be simply, or simplistically, glossed over. If critically looked through, and mindfully reflected upon for a while, it will be realized that, it carries an important message. In a manner of explaining in short, bears on its sleeves the harsh fact of life that the buying community, particularly that section of it who buy a home for own use and enjoyment, - as opposed to investing ‘speculators’ (constituting a majority of / dominating the ‘MARKET’ ) with a view to primarily making easy /unearned ‘gains’ over a period wholly out of appreciation in market value, - have preferred, and chosen to continue so, mostly unwittingly, to remain ‘unaroused’ against all kinds of irregularities the ‘players’ have been recklessly indulging in, with no effective external checks and balances in place. In the process, no thought has been given, and no care taken to make a conscious note of , even the most fundamental concern of all, being that the bought property has a legally “marketable title”, in its absolute sense as envisaged by the law. To illustrate, “GPA Sales” is a glaring instance. That was a practice gone on for too long (to be precise, nearly six decades) until the apex court happened to sternly rule against its illegality. What is extremely disappointing is that even as of now the market sentiments (basic mentality of buyers) do not seem to have changed a wee bit for better.
Aside: Certain latest developments in the related field of, besides administration, adjudication, of property law call for a sharp focus. For a quick insight, may look up the brief analysis of two apex court judgments in the published article in, - (2014) 226 Taxman 143 (Mag). As made out therein, with the given scenario / obtaining state of affairs in the matter of compliance (disobedience/violation) of rules and regulations in statutes, the judicial approach has tended to be liberal; in that, judicial interpretation, instead of laying emphasis on the ‘letter and spirit ‘ of law as has been the convention for ages, has been lately veering round to common sense reasoning, founded on principles of natural justice. That is a clear indication of the change in direction; to know which way the wind blows.
KEY NOTE: In the selected observation of CCI (for comment), there is a misconception / fallacy; in that, firstly, as wrongly implied, what the players render, hence requiring to be improved, are not/ 'services' in any sense of it. The form/substance of transaction is one of sale/purchase of an immovable proprety; hence its attendant special characteristcs and legal inimplications are altogether of different kind. As such, the concerns of buyer ought to be differently viewed, for resolution suitably and appropriately.
May be contd.
AT News
CCI Investigation into Unfair Practices in Realty Sector
COMMENT
“….Under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, …. CCI looks into cases of alleged anti-competitive practices/abuse of dominance including in realty sector.
This was stated by … Minister of Corporate Affairs … in the Rajya Sabha on 24th Feb 2015.”
Three aspects strutting out, in one’s perspective and well-founded conviction, which essentially and predominantly call for a conscious note of and serious follow-on action, more so expeditiously and on a war-footing, better early than any more late, by the empowered MCA, are these:
1. The investigation, in order to be taken to a fruitful/desired end, for the common good, must not be confined to/limited by the scope within the provisions of the special Act administered by the CCI; but must be extended to all related/connected matters. To be precise, the investigation ought to cover all kinds of ongoing “unfair practices”, prevailing for long in the realty sector, across the nation.
2. As a corollary, the initiative and follow-up steps, therefore, need to be taken independent of/ in addition to by CCI, by the concerned ministries as well; in particular, the directly concerned Ministry of Urban Development, both at the centre and in the states.
3. For obvious reasons, fully knowing that the players in the realty sector include other form of entities, e.g. registered and un-registered partnerships, not ‘corporate’ alone, those also require to be suitably roped in and effectively covered, within the sweep.
murali772 - 23 October, 2014 - 11:14
PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES
Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!