Mar 31, 2015
Note No. 1
(A) CORPORATE INFORMATION
The Company was incorporated on October 23, 1991, under the provisions
of the Companies Act,1956. The company Registered Office is located at
Bhimtal, Dist Nanital (Uttarakhand).The Company has been doing trading
and rendering Property Maintenance services.
2.1 The company has not reserved any equity shares for issue under
options and contracts/commitments for sale of shares/disinvestment
2.2 The company for the period of five years immediately preceding the
Balance Sheet date has not
(i) allotted any equity shares as fully paid up pursuant to contract(s)
without payment being received in cash
(ii) alloted any fully paid up shares by way of bonus shares nor has
bought back any class of equity shares
2.3 The company has only one class of equity shares having a par value
of Rs. 10/- per share. Each holder of equity shares is entitled to one
vote per share. The dividend, if any, proposed by the Board of
Directors is subject to the approval of the shareholders, in the
ensuing Annual General Meeting. In the event of liquidation, the equity
shareholders are entitled to receive only the residual assets of the
company. The distribution of dividend, if any, is in the proportion to
the number of equity shares held by the shareholders.
3.1 Bank Balances of Rs 63065/- under the head other bank balance's
(in current account) represents bank accounts seized by statutory
authorities
3.2 Term deposit of Rs 1,00,000/- has been given as security against
the bank gurantee submitted to Department of Trade and Taxes Delhi
4. Commitment & Contingent Liabilities:-
a) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (LG) had filed a suit against the
company, Usha India Ltd., and others for the recovery of Rs.
4,65,02,400/- given as security deposit for the premises A-41, Mohan
Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi -110044 taken by it on lease
from Usha India Ltd. and against the maintenance service agreement for
the same premises entered into with the company. The company has denied
its liability on the ground that it has already assigned the agreement
to Lord Mahadev Trust on 6th August, 1997 and transferred the security
deposit of Rs. 87,19,200/- received by the Company to the said Trust.
However, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has passed a part joint decree
of Rs. 2,31,25,803/- in favour of LG and the LG filed an execution
petition and subsequently the Court directed the ICICI Bank, New
friends Colony, New Delhi to transfer a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to LG. The
liability on account of above decree has not been ascertained by the
court among the parties to the suit.
However, the management is of the opinion based on legal advices, that
the Company shall not be liable to make any payment to L.G, even the
amount of Rs 4,50,000/- shall be recovered by the company from LG
Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (LG).Presently Rs 4,50,000/- so transferred
to LG Electronics has been shown under the head of Long term Loan and
Advances.
(b) Other money for which the company is contingently liable
Assessing officer has filed an appeal before the ITAT, New Delhi
against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the
appeal for deleting the demand of Rs 6,51,050/- towards the penalty
imposed by the Assessing Officer U/s 271(1) (C) relating to the
assessment year 2003-04. The case was remanded back to CIT(Appeals) for
adjudication on merit vide order dated 06-06-2008 by ITAT. However the
CIT(Appeals) has not taken the case till date.
c) Commitments
Estimated amount of contracts remaining to be executed on capital
account and not provided for (net of advances) Nil (previous year Nil)
5. Value of Imports on CIF basis : NIL (P. Year Nil)
6. Details of imported and indigenous raw materials, spare parts, and
components consumed Raw Materials: NIL(P. Year Nil)
Stores & spares: NIL(P. Year Nil)
7. Expenditure in foreign currency: NIL (P Year Nil).
Earning In Foreign currency: NIL (P Year Nil).
8. Exceptional items of Rs 170,79,554/- represents the Loan & Advances
written off in the books of accounts being not recoverable in cash or
in kind.
9. Previous year's figures have been regrouped / rearranged wherever
necessary.
10. Figures in brackets denotes negative figures.
Mar 31, 2014
Note No. 1
(A) CORPORATE INFORMATION
The Company was incorporated on October 23, 1991, under the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956. The company Registered Office is located at
Bhimtal.Dist Nanital (Uttarakhand).The Company has been doing trading
of Steel and other products and rendering Property Maintenance
services.
1.1 The company has not reserved any equity shares for issue under
options and contracts/commitments for sale of shares/disinvestment
1.2 The company for the period of five years immediately preceding the
Balance Sheet date has not
(i) allotted any equity shares as fully paid up pursuant to contract(s)
without payment being received in cash (ii) alloted any fully paid up
shares by way of bonus shares nor has bought back any class of equity
shares
2.0 The company has only one class of equity shares having a par value
of Rs. 10/- per share. Each holder of equity shares is entitled to one
vote per share. The dividend, if any, proposed by the Board of
Directors is subject to the approval of the shareholders, in the
ensuing Annual General Meeting. In the event of liquidation, the equity
shareholders are entitled to receive only the residual assets of the
company. The distribution of dividend, if any, is in the proportion to
the number of equity shares held by the shareholders.
2.1
Bank Balances of Rs 63065/- under the head other bank balance''s (in
current account) represents bank accounts seized by statutory
authorities.
2.2
Term deposit of Rs 1,00,000/- has been given as security against the
bankgurantee submitted to Department of Trade and Taxes Delhi.
3. Commitment & Contingent Liabilities:-
a) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (LG) had filed a suit against the
company, Usha India Ltd., and others for the recovery of Rs.
4,65,02,400/- given as security deposit for the premises A-41, Mohan
Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi -110044 taken by it on lease
from Usha India Ltd. and against the maintenance service agreement for
the same premises entered into with the company. The company has denied
its liability on the ground that it has already assigned the agreement
to Lord Mahadev Trust on 6th August, 1997 and transferred the security
deposit of Rs. 87,19,200/- received by the Company to the said Trust.
However, Hon''bleHigh Court of Delhi has passed a part joint decree of
Rs. 2,31,25,803/- in favour of LG and the LG filed an execution
petition and subsequently the Court directed the ICICI Bank, New
friends Colony, New Delhi to transfer a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to LG. The
liability on account of above decree has not been ascertained by the
court among the parties to the suit.
However, the management is of the opinion based on legal advices, that
the Company shall not be liable to make any payment to L.G, even the
amount of Rs 4,50,000/- shall be recovered by the company from LG
Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (LG).Presently Rs 4,50,000/- so transferred
to LG Electronics has been shown under the head of Long term Loan and
Advances.
(b) Other money for which the company is contingently liable
Assessing officer has filed an appeal before the ITAT, New Delhi
against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the
appeal for deleting the demand of Rs 6,51,050/- towards the penalty
imposed by the Assessing Officer U/s 271(1) (C) relating to the
assessment year 2003-04. The case was remanded back to CIT(Appeals) for
adjudication on merit vide order dated 06-06-2008 by ITAT. However the
CIT(Appeals) has not taken the case till date.
c) Commitments
Estimated amount of contracts remaining to be executed on capital
account and not provided for (net of advances) Nil (previous year Nil)
4. Value of Imports on CIF basis: NIL (P. Year Nil)
5. Details of imported and indigenous raw materials, spare parts, and
components consumed Raw Materials: NIL(P Year Nil)
Stores & spares: NIL(P. Year Nil)
6. Expenditure in foreign currency: NIL (P Year Nil). Earning In
Foreign currency: NIL(P.Year Nil).
7. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN
Provision for gratuity and leave encashment has not been provided in
the books as none of the employees of the company are eligible for
these benefits as on 31.03.2014.
8. Previous year''s figures have been regrouped / rearranged wherever
necessary.
9. Figures in brackets denotes negative figures.
Mar 31, 2013
1. The company was incorporated on 23.10.1991, and is in the business
of Real Estate, Barter Trade & Trading of Chocolates and Beauty
products.
2. Contingent Liabilities:-
a) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (LG) had filed a suit against the
company, Usha India Ltd., and others for the recovery of Rs.
4,65,02,400/- given as security deposit for the premises A-41, Mohan
Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi -110044 taken by it on lease
from Usha India Ltd. and against the maintenance service agreement for
the same premises entered into with the company. The company has denied
its liability on the ground that it has already assigned the agreement
to Lord Mahadev Trust on 6* August, 1997 and transferred the security
deposit of Rs. 87,19,200/- received by the Company to the said Trust.
However, Hon''ble High Court of Delhi has passed a part joint decree of
Rs. 2,31,25,803/- in favour of LG and the LG filed an execution
petition and subsequently the Court directed the ICICI Bank, New
friends Colony, New Delhi to transfer a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to LG. The
liability on account of above decree has not been ascertained by the
court among the parties to the suit. However, the management is of the
opinion that the Company can be liable maximum to the extent of Rs.
87,19,200/- on account of the above recovery suit. Company is
contesting the execution petition filed by LG electronics India Pvt.
Ltd.Rs 4,50,000/- so transferred from the Company''s Banka/cto LG
Electronics has been shown under the head of Long term Loan and
Advances.
(b) Other money for which the company is contingently liable:
Assessing officer has filed an appeal before the ITAT, New Delhi
against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the
appeal for deleting the demand of Rs 6,51,050/- towards the penalty
imposed by the Assessing Officer U/s 271(1) (C) relating to the
assessment year 2003-04. The case was remanded back to CIT(Appeals) for
adjudication on merit vide order dated 06-06-2008 by ITAT. However the
CIT(Appeals) has not taken the case till date.
3. Balances of Loans and Advances are subject to reconciliation and
confirmation.
4. During the year there is no transactions with Related Parties as
per the requirements of AS-18 Related Party Disclosures'' issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
5. Value of Imports on CIF basis: NIL (P. Year Nil)
6. Expenditure in foreign currency: NIL (P Year Nil).
7. Provision for gratuity and leave encashment has not been provided
in the books as none of the employees of the company are eligible for
these benefits as on 31.03.2013.
8. Previous year''s figures have been regrouped / rearranged wherever
necessary.
9. Figures in brackets denotes negative figures.
Mar 31, 2012
1.1 The Company has completed the project the Usha Nike tan, Beni Park
Jaipurth as per the collaboration agreement dated 7th Jan,
1994, and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, requested
the owner of the land Mr Anil Parishes to refund of Rs 12 lacs paid to
him as refundable security. On his failure to pay the amount, the
company filled a legal suit for recovery of the above said amount in
the District court Delhi. The amount of Rs 12 Lacs has been grouped
under the head' Security Depositsth.
1.2 The company had entered into an agreement dated 28- September 1993
with R. L. Baiswala & Sons HUF for purchase of a Plot No.D-71, Satie
Villa, Jamuna Lai Bajaj Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. But as the vendor of
the land could not transfer the land and hand-over its possession, the
company filed a suit against the vendor.
District Trial Court in Jaipur has decreed the suit to the extent of
refund of the money of Rs 17 lacs to company pfus interest @18% plus
cost of the suit but dismissed the prayer for specific performance and
thereafter company filed an appeal with the Rajasthan High Court for
specific performance. Meanwhile the company also filed another appeal
with High Court of Rajasthan praying for injunction order against the
defendants restraining them from sale of the property. The amount of
8,39,214/- including litigation expenses of Rs 755000/- have been shown
as other loans and advances. The High Court has issued a injunction
order dated 08.10.2001 in favour of the Company. There has been no
change in the status of the project during the year.
1.3 The company had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
28.03.1995 with Mrs. P. Jayamma, Mrs. J. Savithramma, and Mrs. P.
Nagarathna for the purpose of putting up residential and commercial
complex on the property bearing S.No.170and 172 of Kodihalli Village,
Varthur, Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk. On completion of the said
project each party was to share 50% of the built-up area including
terrace right.
Company had been forced to keep the project suspended because of the
defect in title deeds of the property and acquisition of some part of
property by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).Company had filed
a legal suit against the party in the City Civil Judge at Bangalore,
for the specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative
for recovery of entire amount paid together with interest of 21% per
annum. The company has Paid Rs 30 Lacs against the J V agreement and as
per the agreement the possession of the aforesaid land is with the
company. The amount of Rs. 15,22,878/- including litigation expenses of
Rs 5,20,000/- has been shown as thother loans and advancesth. There
has been no change in the status of the project during the year.
1.4 The Company entered into an MOU for joint development of
residential and/or commercial complexes at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore, South Taluk on 26-August,1999 with Mr.Y.Rajendraand others.
They failed to perform his obligations under the MOU and therefore the
company had filed a legal suit against them for specific performance of
the agreement.
Subsequently the company has entered into a transfer agreement with M/s
Windsor Infrastructure Ltd (WIL) for the said project on 22.10.2010 for
transferring all its rights, claims, entitlements, liabilities etc for
a total consideration of Rs 10 crores out of which Rs 50 Lacs is
received from the transferee with the balance consideration of Rs 9.50
Crores shall be paid by WIL to the company on successful completion of
the development and construction of project at schedule land without
any legal hindrance. The company has to return the advance of Rs 50
Lacs to WIL without any interest or charges in case of any legal
hindrance in developing the project.
Thereafter Honble' Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District Court
passed an order on 29th November 2010 by directing Mr Y Rajendra and
Others to refund the deposit amount along with interest @ 10 % p.a on
the deposit amount from the date of termination of contract till the
date of deposit of amount in court to the company against which the
company and M/s Windsor Infrastructure Ltd jointly filed an appeal
before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is pending for
admission.
2.1 The company was to recover the amount of Rs 8,50,000/- along with
interest and litigation expenses arising out of our agreement dated gth1
September, 2003 from Mr. Rakesh Sharma on account of the company's
project located at Basant Kunj, Bhopal in which case the company
decided to invoke the arbitration clause of the agreement and the
arbitration proceedings started on 26th May, 2007. The arbitrator vide
its order dated 12th' March, 2009 has given an award in favor of the
company and accordingly the execution proceedings has been initiated to
recover the amount Rs 4,25,426/- which has been shown under the head
Work in progress being the cost of the property.
3. Contingent Liabilities:-
(a) Claims against the company not acknowledged as debt:
LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd (LG) had filed a suit against the
company, Usha India Ltd., and Others for the recovery of Rs.
4,65,02,400/- given by it as security deposit for the premises A-41,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi -110044 taken by it on
lease from Usha India Ltd. and against the maintenance service
agreement for the same premises entered into with the company. The
company has denied its liability on the ground that it has already
assigned the agreement to Lord Mahadev Trust on 6'h August, 1997 and
transferred the security deposit to the said Trust. LG was also
intimated about this assignment. However, Honorable Court has passed a
part joint decree of Rs. 2,31,25,803/- in favour of LG and the LG filed
an execution petition and subsequently the Court directed the ICICI
Bank, New friends Colony, New Delhi to transfer a sum of RS.4,50,000/-
to LG. The liability on account of above decree has not been
ascertained by the court among the parties to the suit. Company is
contesting the execution petition filed by LG Electronics India Pvt.
Ltd.
(b) Other money for which the company is contingently liable:
Assessing officer has filed an appeal before the ITAT, New Delhi
against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the
appeal for deleting the demand of Rs 6,51,050/- towards the penalty
imposed by the Assessing Officer U/s 271(1) (C) relating to the
assessment year 2003-04. The case was remanded back to CIT(Appeals) for
adjudication on merit vide order dated 06-06-2008 by ITAT. However the
CIT(Appeals) have not taken the case till date.
4. Balances of Loans and Advances are subject to reconciliation and
confirmation.
5. During the year there is no transactions with Related Parties as
per the requirements of AS-18 ÃRelated Party Disclosures' issued
bythe Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
6. Value of Imports on CIF basis : NIL (P. Year Nil)
7. Expenditure in foreign currency : NIL (P Year Nil)
8. Provision for gratuity and leave encashment has not been provided
in the books as none of the employees of the company are eligible for
these benefits as on 31.03.2012.
9. Previous year's figures have been regrouped / rearranged wherever
necessary.
10. Figures in brackets denotes negative figures.
Mar 31, 2010
1. Contingent Liabilities:-
(a) (i) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of block
assessment for the block period from 1.4.1990 to 14.2.2001 involving
addition of Rs 2,28,55,113/- has set aside the order of Assessing
Officer based on corresponding appeals filed by the company for Rs
8,35,313/- and by the income tax department for Rs 2,20,19,800/- and
referred back the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the same
afresh after the settlement commission order is available in the case
of promoters and othergroup concerns making the tax demand zero.
(ii) Assessing officer has filed an appeal before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against the order of Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the appeal for deleting the demand of Rs
6,51,050/- towards the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer U/s
271(1) (C) relating to the assessment year 2003-04.
(b) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd ( LG) had filed a suit against Usha
India Ltd., Usha Housing Development Co. Ltd. and Others for the
recovery of Rs. 4,65,02,400/-given by it as security deposit for the
premises A-41, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi -110044
taken by it on lease from Usha India Ltd. and against the maintenance
service agreement for the same premises entered into with Usha Housing
Development Co. Ltd. The company has denied its liability on the ground
that it has already assigned the agreement to Lord Mahadev Trust on 6th
August, 1997 and transferred the security deposit to the said Trust. LG
was also intimated about this assignment. However, Honorable Court has
passed a part joint decree of Rs. 2,31,25,803/- in favour of LG and
the LG filed an execution petition and subsequently the Court directed
the ICICI Bank, New friends Colony, New Delhi to transfer a sum of
RS.4,50,000/- to LG. The liability on account of above decree has not
been ascertained by the court among the parties to the suit. Company is
contesting the execution petition filed by LG electronics India
Pvt.Ltd.
2. a) C- SCHEME, JAIPUR PROJECT :
The company had entered into an agreement dated 28th September 1993
with R. L. Baiswala & Sons HUF for purchase of a Plot No.D-71, Satya
Villa, Jamuna Lai Bajaj Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. But due to objection
raised by the other members of HUF for selling the plot to the company,
the vendor of the land could not transfer the land and hand-over its
possession to the company.
District Trial Court in Jaipur has decreed the suit to the extent of
refund of the money of Rs 17 lacs to company plus interest @18% plus
cost of the suit but dismissed the prayer for specific performance and
thereafter company filed an appeal with the Rajasthan High Court for
specific performance. Meanwhile the company also filed another appeal
with High Court of Rajasthan praying for injunction order against the
defendants restraining them from sale of the property. The amount of
8,39,214/- including the litigation expenses of Rs 755000/-have been
included in work in progress. The High Court has issued a injunction
order dated 08.10.2001 in favour of the Company. There has been no
change in the status of the project during the year.
b) AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE PROJECT:
The company had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
28.03.1995 with Mrs. P. Jayamma, Mrs. J. Savithramma, and Mrs. P.
Nagarathna for the purpose of putting up residential and commercial
complex on the property bearingS.No. 170 and 172 of Kodihalli Village,
Varthur, Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk. On completion of the said
project each party was to share 50% of the built-up area including
terrace right.
Company had been forced to keep the project suspended because of the
defect in title deeds of the property and acquisition of some part of
property by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).Company had filed
a legal suit against the party in the City Civil Judge at Bangalore,
for the specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative
for recovery of entire amount paid together with interest of 21 % per
annum. The company has Paid Rs 30 Lacs against the J V agreement and as
perthe agreement the possession of the aforesaid land is with the
company. The amount of Rs.13,72,878/- including litigation expenses of
Rs 3,70,000/- has been shown under the head work in progress There has
been no change in the status of the project during the year.
c) BROOKEFIELD PROJECT, BANGALORE :
The Company entered into an MOU for joint development of residential
and/or commercial complexes at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram, Bangalore,
South Taluk on 26th August, 1999 with Mr.Y.Rajendra and others.
However the project has not yet been sanctioned by the Bangalore
Development Authority due to some defect in the title of the property,
which is to be complied by the owners. As per agreement, the possession
of aforesaid land is already with the company. The company served legal
notice to the Second Party to go ahead as perthe terms and conditions
of MOU. In spite of this legal notice, Second Party failed to perform
his obligations under the MOU and the company filed a legal suit
against them for specific performance of the agreement. The amount of
Rs. 12,48,721/-including litigation expenses of Rs 6,19,000/- has been
shown under the head work in progress. There has been no change in the
status of project during the year.
d) USHA NIKETAN, D-76, GHIA MARG, BENIPARK.JAIPUR:
As per collaboration agreement dated 7th Jan, 1994, the Company has
completed the project and accordingly, as perterms and conditions of
the agreement, requested the owner of the land Mr Anil Parasharto
refund of Rs 12 lacs paid to him as refundable security. On his failure
to pay the amount, the company filled a legal suit for recovery of the
above said amount in the District court Delhi. The amount of Rs
1200000/-has been shown as deposits.
e) BASANT KUNJ , BHOPAL:
The company was to recover the amount of Rs 8,50,000/-along with
interest and litigation expenses arising out of our agreement dated 9th
September, 2003 from Mr. Rakesh Sharma and therefore the company
decided to invoke the arbitration clause of the agreement and the
arbitration proceedings started on 26th May, 2007. The arbitrator vide
its order dated 12th March, 2009 has given an award in favor of the
company and accordingly the execution proceedings has been initiated to
recoverthe amount. Rs 4,25,426/-has been shown underthe head Work in
progress being the cost of the property
3. Projects amounting to Rs 38,86,239/- is shown under the head work
in progress against which litigations are pending in different courts
as explained in note no 3.
4. Balances of Loans and Advances are subject to reconciliation and
confirmation.
5. As per AS 17 on segment Reporting there is no reportable segment
other than the business of real estate. Hence no separate disclosure
has been made.
6. During the year there is no transactions with Related Parties as
per the requirements of AS-18 Related Party Disclosuresissued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
7. In accordance with the provisions of the Accounting Standard-22 on
"Accounting for Taxes on Income" issued by the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India, the company has recognised deferred tax assets of
Rs 86,00,803/- and
8. No Remuneration was paid to directors during the year.
9. Net realizable value is determined project wise and is based upon
the available information with the company, considering the market
value of the flatted area.
10. Additional information pursuant to the provisions under paragraph
3,4C and 4D Part -II of Schedule VI to the Companies Act1956.
a) The company is engaged in the business of real estate development.
In view of the nature of business it is not practicable to give the
quantitative details regarding the work in progress.
b) The Quantitative information in respect of finished space is not
given as there is no stock of finished space.
11. ASSUMPTION OF THE COMPANY AS GOING CONCERN
Management of the company is of the opinion that company is a going
concern as the management is trying its best to recover some of the
pending dues and is taking suitable steps for revival of the company.
During the year Delhi Stock Exchange has revoked the suspension of
trading in the shares of the company. Accordingly, the securities of
the company are re-admitted to dealings w.e.f. 12.10.2009 subject to
due compliance of Regulations 8 of SEBI (SAST) Regulations,1997.
12. There is no Small Scale Industrial undertaking to which the
company owes sum, which is outstanding for more than 30 days as on
31.03.2010 as per information available with the company.
13. Provision for gratuity and leave encashment has not been provided
in the books as none of the employees of the company are eligible
forthese benefits as on 31.03.2010.
14. Previous years figures have been regrouped / rearranged wherever
necessary. Figure in brackets indicate previous year figure. Figures
have been rounded off to the nearest rupee.
15. From Schedule-1 to Schedule-8 form an integral part of the
accounts and duly authenticated.
Mar 31, 2009
1. Contingent Liabilities:-
(a)(i) An appeal is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
for the deletion of demand of Rs.8,35,313/- raised by Commissioner of
Income Tax, (Appeals) New Delhi for the block assessment of block
period from 1.4.1990 to 14.2.2001.
(ii) Assessing officer has also filed an appeal before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against the relief of Rs 2,20,19,800/-
allowed to the company by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for
the block assessment of block period from 1.4.1990 to 14.2.2001.
(iii) Assessing officer has filed an appeal before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against the order of Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the appeal for deleting the demand of Rs
6,51,050/- towards the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer U/s
271(1) (C) relating to the assessment year 2003-04.
2-. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd ( LG) had filed a suit against Usha
India Ltd., Usha Housing Development Co. Ltd. and Others for the
recovery of Rs. 4,65,02,400/- given by it as security deposit for the
premises A-41, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi -110044
taken by it on lease from Usha India Ltd. and against the maintenance
service agreement for the same premises entered into with Usha Housing
Development Co. Ltd. The company has denied its liability on the ground
that it has already assigned the agreement to Lord Mahadev Trust on 6th
August, 1997 and transferred the security deposit to the said Trust. LG
was also intimated about this assignment. However, Honorable Court has
passed a part joint decree of Rs. 2,31,25,803/- in favour of LG and
the LG filed an execution petitipn and subsequently the Court directed
the ICICI Bank, New friends Colony, New Delhi to transfer a sum of
RS.4,50,000/- to LG. The liability on account of above decree has not
been ascertained by the court among the parties to the suit. Company is
contesting the execution petition filed by LG electronics India
Pvt.Ltd.
3. a) C- SCHEME, JAIPUR PROJECT :
The company had entered into an agreement dated 28th September 1993
with R. L. Baiswala & Sons HUF for purchase of a Plot No.D-71, Satya
Villa, Jamuna Lai Bajaj Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur . But due to objection
raised by the other members of HUF for selling the plot to the company,
the vendor of the land could not transfer the land and hand-over its
possession to the company.
District Trial Court in Jaipur has decreed the suit to the extent of
refund of the money of Rs 17 lacs to company plus interest @ 18% plus
cost of the suit, but dismissed the prayer for specific performance and
thereafter company filed an appeal with the Rajasthan High Court for
specific performance. Meanwhile the company also filed another appeal
with High Court of Rajasthan praying for injunction order against the
defendants restraining them from sale of the property. The amount of
8,39,214/- including the litigation expenses of Rs 755000/- have been
included in work in progress. The High Court has issued a injunction
order dated 08.10.2001 in favour of the Company. There has been no
change in the status of the project during the year.
b) AIRPORT ROAD. BANGALORE PROJECT:
The company had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
28.03.1995 with Mrs. P. Jayamma, Mrs. J. Savithramma, and Mrs. P.
Nagarathna for the purpose of putting up residential and commercial
complex on the property bearing S.No. 170 and 172 of Kodihalli Village,
Varthur, Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk. On completion of the said
project each party was to share 50% of the built-up area including
terrace right.
Company had be,en forced to keep the project suspended because of the
defect in title deeds of the property and acquisition of some part of
property by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).Company had filed
a legal suit against the party in the City Civil Judge at Bangalore,
for the specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative
for recovery of entire amount paid together with interest of 21% per
annum. The company has Paid Rs 30 Lacs against the J V agreement and as
per the agreement the possession of the aforesaid land is with the
company. The amount of Rs. 13,72,878/- including litigation expenses of
Rs 3,70,000/- has been shown under the head work in progress There has
been no change in the status of the project during the year.
c) BROOKEFIELD PROJECT, BANGALORE :
The Company entered into an MOU for joint development of residential
and/or commercial complexes at Hoodi Village, K.R.Puram, Bangalore,
South Taluk on 26th August, 1999 with Mr.Y.Rajendra and others.
However the project has not yet been sanctioned by the Bangalore
Development Authority due to some defect in the title of the property,
which is to be complied by the owners. As per agreement, the possession
of aforesaid land is already with the company. The company served legal
notice to the Second Party to go ahead as per the terms and conditions
of MOU. In spite of this legal notice, Second Party failed to perform
his obligations under the MOU and the company filed a legal suit
against them for specific performance of the agreement. The amount of
Rs. 12,48,721/- including litigation expenses of Rs 6,19,000/- has been
shown under the head work in progress. There has been no change in the
status of project during the year.
d) USHA NIKETAN, D-76, GHIA MARG, BENIPARKJAIPUR:
As per collaboration agreement dated 7th Jan, 1994, the Company has
completed the project and accordingly, as per terms and conditions of
the agreement, requested the owner of the land Mr Anil Parashar to
refund of Rs 12 lacs paid to him as refundable security. On his failure
to pay the amount, the company filled a legal suit for recovery of the
above said amount in the District court Delhi. The amount of Rs
1200000/-has been shown as deposits.
e) BASANT KUNJ . BHOPAL:
The company was to recover the amount of Rs 8,50,000/- along with
interest and litigation expenses arising out of our agreement dated 9
September, 2003 from Mr. Rakesh Sharma and therefore the company
decided to invoke the arbitration clause of the agreement and the
arbitration proceedings started on 26th May, 2007. The arbitrator vide
its order dated 12th March, 2009 has given an award in favor of the
company and accordingly the execution proceedings has been initiated to
recover the amount. Rs 4,25,426/- has been shown under the head Work in
progress being the cost of the property
4. Projects amounting to Rs 38,86,239/- is shown under the head work
in progress against which litigations are pending in different courts
as explained in note no 3.
5. Balances of Loans and Advances are subject to reconciliation and
confirmation.
6. As per AS 17 on segment Reporting there is no reportable segment
other than the business of real estate. Hence no separate disclosure
has been made.
7. During the year there is no transactions with Related Parties as
per the requirements of AS-18 Related Party Disclosures issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
8. Provision for deferred tax on account of carry forward losses has
not been made as it is not reasonably certain that sufficient future
taxable income will be available against which deferred tax assets can
be realized
9. No Remuneration was paid to directors during the year.
10. Net realizable value is determined project wise and is based upon
the available information with the company, considering the market
value of the flatted area.
11. Additional information pursuant to the provisions under paragraph
3,4C and 4D Part -II of Schedule VI to the Companies Act1956.
a) The company is engaged in the business of real estate development.
In view of the nature of business it is not practicable to give the
quantitative details regarding the work in progress.
b) The Quantitatiye information in respect of finished space is not
given as there is no stock of finished space.
12. ASSUMPTION OF THE COMPANY AS GOING CONCERN
In spite of the continuous losses, pending legal cases, suspension of
listing from Bombay Stock Exchange and Delhi Stock Exchange, management
of the company is of the opinion that company is a going concern as the
management is trying its best to recover some of the pending dues and
is taking suitable steps for revival of the company. The company has
also applied to Delhi Stock Exchange for re-listing/trading of its
shares under the amnesty scheme of Delhi stock exchange.
13. There is no Small Scale Industrial undertaking to which the company
owes sum, which is outstanding for more than 30 days as on 31.03.2009
as per information available with the company.
14. Since there is no taxable income, no provision for income tax has
been made.
15. Previous years figures have been regrouped / rearranged wherever
necessary. Figure in brackets indicate previous year figure. Figures
have been rounded off to the nearest rupee.
16. From schedule -1 to schedule-6 form an integral part of the
accounts and duly authenticated.