SC rejects proposal of Parsvnath Developers for homebuyers
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the proposal of Parsvnath Developers specifying details about handing over possession of flats or repaying monies with interest to hundreds of hassled homebuyers, saying that it seemed like “another device” to delay the proceedings.
The top court cautioned that unless a fresh proposal satisfying the claims of all the “allottees or homebuyers” in companies and their subsidiary firms is placed on record, it will be “constrained to appoint a High-Powered Committee for entrustment of all the responsibilities.”
The homebuyers’ claims refer to the refunds, compensation for delayed possession, and non-execution of RERA orders. Taking the proposal of Parsvnath on record, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said, “We are satisfied that the proposal is nothing but another device to delay the compliance of possession of (flats) and delay the repayment of monies (to homebuyers.”
The bench permitted the firm to file another proposal which may be acceptable to homebuyers who are waiting endlessly for their homes.
It observed that state authorities, which should have worked to secure the interests of homebuyers, apparently conspired with the builder, which did not even follow the orders of a quasi-judicial forum like Haryana RERA. The bench also refused to entertain a plea of the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP), appointed in the insolvency proceedings against the real estate firm, that at least one of the frozen bank accounts be allowed to be operated by him for running affairs of the firm.
“If IRPs were useful and working properly, people would not have come to us,” the CJI said, adding that he did not want to say much against them at the moment.
The top court, which had earlier frozen the bank accounts of the real estate firms, was urged by the IRP that he has received 3,000 claims from homebuyers and that he be allowed to operate one of the frozen accounts of the firm.
During the hearing, the bench trashed the proposal of the real estate company that it proposes to deliver possession of dwelling units to homebuyers in one year.
The counsel for the firm said Parsvnath Group, under its 24 housing projects, was to build 27,000 dwelling units and out of them, 24,000 units have been sold, and around 3,000 are yet to be offered for possession.
“They have already suffered a lot,” the CJI said, adding that “You deposit Rs 500 crore with the apex court registry. We will appoint a high-powered committee (HPC) and then we will see.”
“Today, they (homebuyers) have a money decree in their favour…They are running from pillar to post,” the bench said, adding that even ordering a CBI probe does not help the homebuyers.
The bench then referred to the ordeal of Rita Tikku, a cancer survivor, and Lokaish Tikku, who invested their life savings in the Parsvnath Exotica project in Sector 53, Gurugram.
It said Tikku, despite paying full sale consideration, continued to be deprived of their home for the last two decades.
“Rs 1.78 crore was the sale consideration. The flat was to be handed over in 36 months. Possession became due in February 2013,” it noted.
Despite paying the full amount, the petitioners found that the construction was not even near completion.
The bench said that till 2021, Tikku was neither paid the money back nor was possession of the flat given to her.
The bench is now hearing over 10 cases against the same builder.
Earlier, the bench had asked Parsvnath Developers and its directors to file a status report on cases filed by hassled homebuyers against them and the stages where the matters are pending.
On July 13, the bench had frozen the bank accounts of the real estate firm and its directors, and issued bailable warrants against the company’s leadership after taking note of a 20-year struggle by senior citizens to secure possession of their homes.
It had also come down heavily on Haryana authorities for their failure to enforce orders passed by the Haryana RERA against the real estate firm, saying that the case exposes serious concerns about the effectiveness of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in securing relief for homebuyers.
