SC asks Delhi court to take cognisance of CBI chargesheets on builders-banks nexus

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked a special CBI court here to take cognisance within two weeks of three chargesheets filed by the federal agency on the “unholy nexus” between banks and developers to dupe homebuyers in the NCR, and proceed with the trial. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was apprised by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared in the matter for the CBI, that a substantial progress in the investigation will be made by the federal agency in all the 25 cases of homebuyers by March.

In July last year, the court had allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register 22 cases over the “unholy nexus” between banks and developers to dupe homebuyers in the National Capital Region (NCR) by using the subvention scheme.

Under the scheme, banks disburse the sanctioned loan amount directly to the accounts of builders, who are then required to pay monthly instalments on the amount until flats are handed over to homebuyers.

After builders started defaulting on the instalments, the banks demanded the money from homebuyers, in line with the tripartite agreement. On Tuesday, the bench, hearing the pleas of more than 1,200 hassled homebuyers, passed a fresh set of directions after taking note of the submissions of Bhati and amicus curiae (friend of the court) Rajiv Jain.

Bhati said the CBI has filed three chargesheets in Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court but their cognisance is yet to be taken.

The bench asked the trial court to take cognisance of the chargesheets in two weeks and proceed with the cases expeditiously.

It asked the CBI to share the chargesheets’ copies with the amicus curiae who, in turn, will apprise the bench of the status and fairness of the probe conducted so far.

The court noted that the CBI has inducted police officers from Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to assist it in its ongoing probe in the cases.

The bench asked the central agency to consider lodging more FIRs if further complaints so warrant.

It also asked 23 banks and financial institutions, which are involved as bankers in the cases, to deposit Rs 10 lakh each in a special account of the Union Bank of India for reimbursing the expenses incurred by the amicus curiae and his office in assisting the bench.

Earlier, the bench had allowed the CBI to convert the six preliminary enquiries it had conducted against various builders and banks into 22 regular cases, equivalent to FIRs for cognisable offences, for further investigation. Later, the number of cases rose. Those under the scanner include builders in the NCR and development authorities in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.

The bench had appreciated the CBI’s efforts in taking up the matter after realising the gravity and magnitude of the issue, examining more than 1,000 people and visiting 58 project sites, and asked it to expeditiously conclude the investigation and take the matter to its logical conclusion.

The court had noted that the investigation in the seventh preliminary enquiry registered by the CBI over projects of various builders except Supertech Limited falling outside the NCR — in Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kolkata, Mohali and Allahabad — was still on.

It was hearing a batch of petitions filed by the more than 1,200 homebuyers, who had booked flats under the subvention plans in various housing projects in the NCR, especially in Noida, Greater Noida and Gurugram, alleging that they were being forced by banks to pay instalments despite no possession of flats.

On March 29 last year, the court allowed the CBI to register five preliminary enquiries into the affairs of builders and projects in the NCR, including in Noida, Greater Noida, Gurugram, Ghaziabad and on the Yamuna Expressway.

It had allowed one preliminary enquiry to be registered against the reality major Supertech Limited. A total of 799 homebuyers have moved the Supreme Court against Supertech Limited by way of 84 appeals, involving projects in eight different cities. The court had directed the CBI to share portions of the sealed-cover report with the amicus curiae as “deemed necessary”.