Supreme Court of India stays Delhi HC order on Unitech’s meet with the home buyers is put on stay in addition to continue with the petition made against it at National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the home buyers.

It seemed for a while that the realty and construction giant Unitech could take a sigh of relief after the hearing made in its favour by the Delhi High Court. But, the game altered pretty quick as the apex court of the country intervened in to the issue and put stays on the Delhi High Court’s earlier order that had given immunity to Unitech and its directors.

In the latest development on the case that initiated due to an allegation made by 111 homebuyers of Unitech Residence project, the Supreme Court of India has put stay on the High Court’s order. According to the High Court’s order, all hearings related to the case were put on a stay and the builder was asked to go for a scheme of compromise and arrangement under Section 391 of Companies Act.

The hearing was made by a bench of justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy. The bench has also issued a notice to Unitech, mentioning, “There is suspicion that it is trying to subvert the order of this court”. Now all the previous proceedings against Unitech are reopened. The meeting scheduled to be held between Unitech and the homebuyers, as ordered by the HC is also put on stay. Instead, Unitech has been asked to set up escrow accounts where the money received from the buyers along with the sale of lands would be deposited so that the company can complete all its pending/delayed projects.

According to a report, a total of about 40 cases are found to be pending against Unitech in the Delhi High Court. However, actual figure is counted to be 929 according to a search on the website of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The group of 111 buyers of Gurgaon, who had made the petition is represented by lawyer ML Lahoty, according to whom, “Total immunity was given to Unitech by the company judge from past, present and future proceedings. This is a classic case of abuse of judicial power.

According to these investors, they had paid money to Unitech on time and the company was committed to hand over the possession of the property in 2012; however, it was not followed in practice. The investors had then approached the NCDRC.