1.  Contingent Liabilities:-
 
 (a) 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.
 
 (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 an 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 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 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. 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 during the year 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 Hon''ble 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.
 
 d) USHANIKETAN,D-76,GHIAMARG,BENIPARK,JAIPUR:
 
 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 filed a legal suit for recovery of the
 above said amount in the District court Delhi. The amount of Rs 12 Lacs
 has been shown as deposits.
 
 e) BASANTKUNJ.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
 recover the amount. Rs 4,25,426/- has been shown under the head Work in
 progress being the cost of the property
 
 3.  Projects amounting to Rs 40,61,239/- is shown under the head work
 in progress against which litigations, are pending in different courts
 as explained in note no 2.
 
 4.  Balances of Loans and Advances are subject to reconciliation and
 confirmation.
 
 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.
 
 5.  Additional information pursuant to the provisions under paragraph
 3,4C and 4D Part -II of Schedule VI to the Companies Act''1956.
 
 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.
 
 6.  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 Bombay 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. 14.03.2011 subject to
 due compliance of Regulations 8 of SEBI (SAST) Regulations,1997.
 
 7.  As on date the company has not received confirmation from any of
 the suppliers who have registered under the Micro small and Medium
 Enterprises Development Act 2006 and hence no disclosures have been
 made under the said Act.
 
 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 31.03.2011.
 
 9.  Previous year''s figures have been regrouped / rearranged wherever
 necessary. Figure in brackets indicate previous year figure. Figures
 have been rounded off to the nearest rupee.
 
 10.  From Schedule-1 to Schedule-8 form an integral part of the
 accounts and duly authenticated.