1.Point no. 5, “A. Management Part” under part B of Independent Audit Report dated 30.12.2020 says Special General Meetings: ‘No’ while, the Agenda Point No. 1 of AGM seeks to read the Minutes of SBGM held in November 2020. Aren’t these both statements contradicting each other and hence doesn’t this mutually contradicting scenario nullify the very validity of the said SGBM?

2. Bank statements of Society’s Abhyudaya Bank account has not been produced to the auditor and the responsibility has been emphasized on the person concerned. (point 5, B. Finance Management, under Part -B of Audit Report). How does the committee view this; as very normal?

3. Why there is a gap of total funds as on 31.03.2020 and the funds invested i.e, Rs. 60,75,375 vs Rs. 39,18,459 and how the committee is planning to comply with observations of Audit Report. (Point 6, B. Finance Management, under Part -B of Audit Report)

4. point No. 8, B. Finance Management, under Part -B of Audit Report, mentions Mrs. Suchmita Roy Sarkar as Society’s incumbent chairman which is a change from the de-facto formation of society on 08.10.2017. Has this change been undertaken in accordance with Society’s Act 1960 or otherwise? The Valencia family recalls a Notice served by owner 1102-A wherein, stepping down of Sh. Ambrish Dubey and taking over of Mrs. Suchmita was requested to be clarified by way of providing a copy of Co-op. Registrar’s order to replace old chairman and election report of the ‘returning officer’. It is learnt that documents have not been provided to the said owner till date.

5. Point No. 2. Under Part -C of Audit Report, Property Register, fixed Assets Register and Investment Register are not maintained. Is it normal affairs of transacting society’s business?

6. Point No. 5 Under Part -C makes mention that three Funds have been created but not invested with specific fund name. Is it normal affairs of transacting society’s business?

7. Doesn’t the lapses highlighted under Sr. No. 2,3, 4, 5 & 6 facilitate scope for manipulations? And, hence bad in the society’s very interest?

8. Has the rectification Report in “O” form been sent to the Auditor or its preparation is underway? And, will this report will be posted in Public Domain to be viewed by every common owner?

9. The proposed expenditure of Rs. 1.5 Cr for renovation of building under Agenda point 10- Why to keep a huge budget item at Sr. 10? Based on the likely impact on each individual flat owner doesn’t this merit getting placed with super prominence?

(i) What is the quantum of impact on an average individual? Isn’t this too untimely to be discussed on the merits of Report from the consultancy viz. “Acute Project Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd”?  What is the credibility of this consultancy and how was it selected for the job?

(ii)Except A and C part of the estimates ie. Structural Repairs and Waterproofing the work seems to be purely aesthetical. And, given the timing of financial duress created by pandemic, such proposals are highly untimely and precisely to be termed as questionable. Worst, the most concerned issue for residents, which is seepage through the walls during rains doesn’t seem to be included. Inputs and survey from general members are that, the seepage of walls has not been fixed yet and we are planning aesthetics.

10. Even if the Structural Repairs and Waterproofing are consented upon, there should be a total clarity in the way of awarding contracts to a party. Competitive bidding with the competing bids accessible to all members should be ensured. Qualifying criteria for a bidder must be placed in public domain. There are questions unanswered among the common residents as to how the boundary wall and gym facility incurred Rs. 14lakhs+ and 7 lacs+ in absence of a well laid SOP of qualifying contractors. Commonfloor.com where a two-way communication is possible must be employed for discussions in the issues that involve budgets above 2 lakhs. Also, the terms of contract must incorporate adequate compensatory provisions in case the contactors fail to deliver on the requirements agreed upon.

11. Agenda Point 11 of AGM: proposed switching to mygate from commonfloor- The question is why to Switch to mygate when Popularity stats and other metrics of mygate stands nowhere in comparison to that of commonfloor? It has been felt by the common residents that persons accountable for answering over Commonfloor need to be changed if any such change is required.

(i)The residents who are tech savvy can easily see the differences between Commonfloor and mygate in terms of different metrics: https://prnt.sc/10h382f  vs  https://prnt.sc/10h3lho

(ii)Another reason is safeguarding our privacy. Why to expose all our personal data of residents with every new app coming your way. With commonfloor 170 families have already shared the family details, bank accounts etc. When there is lot of hue and cry over privacy of data, does the switching for no unavoidable reasons, sound good proposition?

(iii)Reason three, is that Commonfloor is having past details of all the issues raised, some closed, some unilaterally closed, some unresolved while other been rejected autocratically. Let’s preserve this data in everyone’s interest.

(iv) If at all, the gate entry feature of mygate is what looks indispensable, we can continue using that feature of mygate as we have been doing in the past but without doing away with commonfloor.

12. What is the date of deemed conveyance of our society?? Since when the Share certificates are being issued?

13. Are the share certificates issued to the owners under a seal which no longer qualifies as a common seal (as per Institute of Company Secretaries of India) are valid. (discussed here: https://bit.ly/30XRrvy ). It may be worth mentioning that the issue of misuse of Society’s Common seal has been raised by one of the members at Commonfloor vide complaint Number 278. But the clarity has been evaded time and again with ultimately trashing the question itself saying the knowledge of owner is half only and internet copy pasted. Worst, the accurate knowledge on common seal has not been shared in public domain by office bearers nor any clarity been provided as to how the seal was misused.

14. It is seen that Parking allotted to the incumbent chairman was not part of the Original layout /parking plan. After conveyance or deemed conveyance whatever be the case with our society, any space/FSI etc. becomes society’s property; means common property for all shareholders. Everyone is curious to know as how much society gained in parting with that parking place towards an individual interest.

15. Agenda No. 15 of AGM- Encroachment and structural changes: How come the committee members been allowed structural changes ? What actions have been taken against them. If not yet, doesn’t this project a collusion with other office bearers and discriminating treatment for common residents? What specifics of these alternations are there in respect of the other individual owners?

16. Agenda Point 14-Update on Legal Proceedings against Builder: After 3 to 4 years of delay the society wakes up to know (in Nov- Dec. 2020) that the legal actions earlier taken against the builder has been rendered unsustainable in view of certain rulings by hon’ble Supreme Court and that a VRF (Voluntary Resident Forum) has to be registered for filing case against the builder. There are few points to be highlighted:

(i) the ‘Complainant’ under both the Consumer Protection Acts 1986 and the latter Version 2019 require the ‘complainant’ to be a Voluntary Consumer Association. So, even if the SC ruling on pretext of which VRF was proposed (and hence fresh budget is needed), the fact was very much known to our representing advocate and the Secretary himself (by virtue of him being a law degree holder)

(ii) Condonation/ relaxation under Consumer Protection Act, beyond 2 years of delay may not be allowed on the basis of society’s alleged “ignorance of law”and if at all allowed, there would be strong defense available to the builder against the same.

(iii) For all these years the residents have heavily depended on the legal expertise of our secretary.

(iv) The society must have spent good consultation fee already.

(v) Are we misguided by someone maybe, our consultant advocate for his vested interest with builder?

[Refer Section 2(b)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 defining the term ‘complainant’  : https://bit.ly/3lAYp2V

Refer Section 2(5)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 defining the term ‘complainant’ : https://bit.ly/3vFyGvb  ]