SC to CBI| India News

The direction came in a batch of petitions where the court is monitoring the progress of 25 regular cases (RC) registered by CBI against banks, financial institutions and real estate firms. While investigation in three cases has completed and charge sheet filed, the agency filed a report to the court that the cases registered were pursuant to orders passed by the court on July 22 and September 23 last year.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant noted that pursuant to the September 23 order, fresh petitions and applications have been filed by homebuyers giving evidence of other projects across the country where flat purchasers are stuck under subvention scheme with banks insisting on installments even as builders failed to deliver the houses.

Several lawyers representing homebuyers including Akshay Srivastava told the court that while the cases already investigated by CBI cover realty firms such as Supertech, the fresh applications provide details of housing projects by builders who may or may not be under probe.

The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said, “The lawyers for the petitioners in writ petitions and intervention applications are directed to hand over a soft copy to additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati representing CBI to enable the CBI to examine the matter and register further cases wherever required.”

These cases to be now probed by CBI involve housing projects in Noida, Greater Noida, Sohna, Gurugram, Chennai and Bengaluru by big realty firms such as Supertech, Vatika Group, Ajnara, Raheja Developers, Earthcon Universal, Ozone Infra, Mahagun among others.

ASG Bhati informed the court that the agency is probing 25 RCs and expects to make substantial progress in all of them by the end of March this year. In three cases where charge sheets have been filed before the chief metropolitan magistrate in Rouse Avenue courts in Delhi, the bench directed the concerned court to proceed in accordance with law within two weeks.

The court also took up non-subvention matters related to distressed Supertech projects where either state-owned NBCC Ltd has been roped in to complete construction or in the case of Supertech Supernova where the court has formed a committee headed by a former high court judge to ensure completion of construction.

The national company law appellate tribunal (NCLAT) in December 2024 handed over 16 stalled Supertech projects to state-owned NBCC Limited against which court heard several applications by builders and homebuyers. On their arguments that neither the homebuyers nor committee of creditors were consulted, the bench said, “It is a matter of concern if homebuyers and CoC were not heard. We do not have knowledge about the case but homebuyers should be satisfied.”

The court posted the matter for hearing next Wednesday and asked all the applications in the matter to be forwarded to advocate Rajiv Jain, assisting the court as amicus curiae. The bench held that builders who have cheated homebuyers will not get any right to decide who should run the project.

Similarly, with regard to the Noida-based Supernova project, the court ordered moratorium on insolvency proceedings and granted immunity to the empowered committee headed by justice (retd) MM Kumar against numerous litigations pending against Supertech and its subsidiaries.

“Ultimately these projects have to be completed. The persons who have duped the homebuyers should be ousted. They should be thrown out and placed somewhere in Tihar Jail,” the bench said, while adding, “If any person or entity who has filed an application is remotely or directly related to the original builder who has caused this extreme harassment to homebuyers, they will be responsible for necessary consequences.”

When some of the homebuyers said that NBCC is only a project management consultant (PMC), the court said, “Is there any other competent government, semi-government or PSU whom we can trust without putting any further burden on homebuyers? What is the way out?”

The court was critical about the role played by the interim resolution professionals appointed to oversee the running of a company facing insolvency. “There are so many disappointing reports about their functioning and such mishandling by them. We don’t want to comment on the resolution professionals,” the bench remarked.

The amicus curiae also submitted an exhaustive 700-page report to the court on the unfair deal given to homebuyers and the role of banks who leave little recourse for flat purchasers to accept to the terms of the tripartite agreement. The bench directed Jain to share his report with the CBI, which was directed to furnish an updated status report after two weeks.