Cosmic Group – Fraud by Cosmic Group

My name is Rajesh Lamba, brother of, Famous Indian Cricketer Mr. Raman Lamba. I am having strong work experience of more than 25 years and have earned a name in real estate industry. I have worked in association with many prestigious infrastructure companies and have hardcore experience of delivering more than 40 successful projects nationwide and more than 50 Lac Sq Ft of residential & Commercial Space. I am having a recognized and respected name in the Infrastructure domain of India and was never associated with the Cosmic Structures Limited.
Cosmic Group in order to cheat and dupe the investors and to show its experience in the market was using my name and projects developed by me in its brouchers, website, publicity material, advertisements claiming me as its Director. If my work experience is removed from the experience as mentioned by the Cosmic Group, then Cosmic Group is having no experience in real estate business, not even a single project been completed by them till date but they claim 25 years of experience and so many projects completed in their profile, all belonging to me. After repeated requests by me when my name was not removed by the Cosmic Group, I had filed a Civil Suit against M/s Cosmic Structures Ltd. before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for restraining the Cosmic Group, its promoters, directors, partners, family members, dealers, distributors, retailers, representatives, franchisees, employees, servants, agents, successors in title or any one acting for and on their behalf from using my or any of its project in any manner whatsoever.
The said case is decreed in my favour by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi whereby the Cosmic Group and its promoters, directors, partners, family members, dealers, distributors, retailers, representatives, franchisees, employees, servants, agents, successors in title or any one acting for and on their behalf is restrained from using my name or any of my project in any manner whatsoever and further restrained them from claiming me as a Director of the Cosmic Structures Limited or associated with it in any other capacity or manner.
(Copy of the order is attached for your reference) The fraud of the Cosmic Group is not only limited to this extent as the Cosmic Group has played fraud with various investors/ customers in the market and a copy of FIR lodged in Janak Puri Police station is also attached for your reference. This is filed by an investor who has accused Cosmic Group of committed offences U/S 420/406/467/468/471/120. The complaint is against Cosmic Structures Ltd. for cheating and making false promises to investors of selling property at Cosmic Corporate Park, Sector -154, Noida, without any ownership/ approval/ permission/ NOC from competent Authorities.
Reports about Cosmic Structures Ltd.
Various consumer groups and individuals have already raised complaints against ARN Infrastructure and Cosmic structures ltd. for selling a single residential/ commercial plot multiple times to various individuals, thus duping as many as hundreds of investors who had booked flats/commercial/Offices with the developer.
According to the buyers, ARN Infrastructure started IT cum local shopping complex with serviced apartments in Plot No. 10, Tech Zone, Greater Noida at Yamuna Expressway which was group’s first project, under the name –Global Business Park. The park comprises of 7,00,000 sq.ft IT/ITes office space, 1, 50,000 sq.ft residential space and 1, 50,000 sq.ft of commercial space.
From 2009, ARN started inviting buyers for their residential property and promised to give possession of the same by the last quarter of 2011.
“Earlier at plot no 10 tech zone Noida was having a project named Globus Business Park and builder ARN Infrastructures sold this project by displaying their sample flat. For past five years construction was not going on and also now same project is being sold by Cosmic Structures Limited, under the name of Cosmic Corporate Park. How a builder can sell a property which is already sold by the name of Globus Business Park,” says N.M Subram, a buyer who has already shelled out Rs 15,32,034/- (Rs Fifteen Lakh Thirty Two Thousand And Thirty Four Only) for 428 sq feet Area in 2010. Estimates are that investors have been duped with more than Rs. 600 Crores.
He further added, “ The same project was renamed to Cosmic Corporate IT Park and we got shock of our life to read the news about IT Park Location Site Sealed for the misuse of Water. Although the company is managed by Sushant Muttreja and Vikas Raj Sharma as Directors having a very strong track record as shown in company’s website, but it is very clear that the company is fraud and is all set to dupe the investors once again. The fact for the company is till date they were unable to deliver any project and the project mentioned was their first project started back in 2011 and was scheduled to be delivered in 2013/14. Although at the construction front the project is almost at a sleeping phase with just a few photographs showing elementary digging work going on till date. Mr. Abdul Zabbar, has booked a space of 456 sq. feet area with ARN’s Global Business Park. He had already made a payment of Rs 17,70,921/- and has now applied for a refund from the developer where he has been running from pillar to post as ARN says that Cosmic will make the payment and vice versa. The Noida Authority has confirmed an infinite stay on the construction of Cosmic IT Park, which has increased tension among the investors. Hundreds of Investors of Cosmic Group are now asking for refund of their investments from the developer.
I Request you to please kindly support me and investors of our country to be saved from this kind of fraud builder who use somebody else`s background and goodwill to dupe as many as Thousands of investors who had booked flats / commercial / Offices with Cosmic Structure Ltd.
Details : hc-order030
 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 441/2014, IA No.2927/2014 (u/o 39 R-1and2 CPC) and IA
No.6354/2014 (of the defendant u/S 151 CPC) and IA No.6355/2014 (of the
defendant for exemption)
RAJESH LAMBA ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Vijay Pal Dalmia and Mr. Pavit Singh Katoch, Advs.
versus
COSMIC STRUCTURES LTD …. Defendant
Through: Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
03.04.2014
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=71022&yr=2014
1 of 5 16-05-2014 21:58
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for the following reliefs:-
?(a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their
promoters, directors, partners, family members, dealers, distributors,
retailers, representatives, franchisees, employees, servants, agents,
successors in title or any one acting for and on their behalf from using
the name of the plaintiff or the name of any of plaintiff?s projects in
any manner whatsoever including but not limited to on their website,
brochures, publicity material, advertisements, and further from claiming
the plaintiff to be a Director of the defendant Company or associated
with the defendant Company in any other capacity or manner;
CS(OS) 441/2014 page 1 of 3
(b) Pass an order directing the defendant to deliver and hand over all
printed and advertising material bearing the name of the plaintiff or any
of his projects or the reference that the plaintiff is a Director of the
defendant Company;
(c) Pass a decree directing payment of Rs.20,10,000/- as damages for
illegal and unauthorized use of the name of the plaintiff, the name of
the plaintiff?s projects and the goodwill of the plaintiff, along with
interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the filing of the present suit
till the date of the realisation of the amount; and,
(d) Cost of the suit may please be allowed in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendant.
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=71022&yr=2014
2 of 5 16-05-2014 21:58
2. The plaintiff, in the plaint in para 7 has inter alia stated that
the plaintiff does not know the defendant Company save to the extent of
what is in public domain on the internet.
3. While issuing summons of the suit, vide ex parte order dated 14th
February, 2014, the defendant was restrained from using the name of the
plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.
4. The defendant, upon being served with summons of the suit, instead
of filing a written statement has filed IA No.6354/2014 inter alia
stating that the defendant and its Managing Director have had a long
association with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has falsely portrayed in the plaint as if the
plaintiff does not know the defendant and that the
defendant has attempted to piggyback on the expertise and experience of
the plaintiff.
CS(OS) 441/2014 page 2 of 3
5. The counsel for the defendant further states that the defendant has
no objection to the suit being decreed in terms of para ?(a)? supra of
the prayer clause.
6. The counsel for the plaintiff in rejoinder has argued that though
the plaintiff in para 7 of the plaint has portrayed that he did not know
the defendant but has in para 21 of the plaint admitted the relationship
with the defendant and receipt of payments from the defendant.
7. The plaintiff indeed has not made a complete disclosure of facts.
The plaintiff, in the beginning of the plaint has painted a picture of
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=71022&yr=2014
3 of 5 16-05-2014 21:58
the defendant, without any permission having commenced using the name of
the plaintiff. A disclosure towards the end of a lengthy plaint does not
serve the purpose and amounts to paying lip service to the requirement of
coming to the Courts with clean hands. It does not appear that the
plaintiff, even on 14th February, 2014 when ex parte injunction against
the defendant was obtained, informed the Court of having received
payments from the defendant.
8. Faced therewith, the counsel for the plaintiff states that he is
not pressing for the relief of damages and delivery.
9. Accordingly, the suit is decreed, in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant, in terms of prayer paragraph ?(a)?of the plaint,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
APRIL 03, 2014
pp
CS(OS) 441/2014 page 3 of 3
$ 6.
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=71022&yr=2014
4 of 5 16-05-2014 21:58
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=71022&yr=2014
5 of 5 16-05-2014 21:58