SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

Supreme Court freezes Parsvnath Developers' bank accounts over non-compliance in homebuyer dispute

#Law & Policy#India
Synopsis

The Supreme Court has ordered the immediate freezing of the bank accounts of Parsvnath Developers Ltd, Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt Ltd and their directors while issuing bailable warrants against the company's leadership in a long-running homebuyer dispute linked to the Parsvnath Exotica project in Gurugram. The court acted after observing prolonged non-compliance with orders issued by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) and raised concerns over the effectiveness of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in securing relief for homebuyers. The matter involves senior citizens who booked flats nearly two decades ago but are yet to receive possession despite paying the full consideration. The apex court also criticised Haryana authorities for failing to enforce regulatory orders and directed state officials and banks to ensure immediate compliance with its directions.

The Supreme Court has directed the immediate freezing of the bank accounts of Parsvnath Developers Ltd, Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt Ltd and their managing directors and directors in connection with a prolonged homebuyer dispute involving the Parsvnath Exotica residential project in Sector 53, Gurugram. The order was passed on Monday after the court found continued non-compliance with directions issued by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) and expressed concern over the delay in delivering possession to homebuyers. 
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, also issued bailable warrants against the company's directors. The court made it clear that non-bailable warrants would be issued if they failed to appear before the court. It further restrained the developer from creating any third-party rights in the project or handing over possession of any flats to third parties until further orders. 
The proceedings arose from petitions filed by senior citizen homebuyers, including Rita Tikku, a cancer survivor, and Lokaish Tikku, who invested their life savings in apartments at the Parsvnath Exotica project. The buyers were allotted residential units in 2006 and entered into builder-buyer agreements in early 2007. The total sale consideration was approximately INR 1.78 crore, with possession contractually due by February 2013. However, despite paying the agreed amount, the buyers remain without possession of their homes. 
The court observed that HRERA had passed orders in favour of the homebuyers during 2021 and 2022, directing the developer to provide relief. Those orders were not challenged and had attained finality. However, execution proceedings failed to yield results, with authorities unable to recover dues or enforce compliance despite repeated efforts. The Bench noted that even warrants issued by HRERA had not been effectively executed, raising questions about the enforcement mechanism available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 
Expressing concern over the conduct of the state machinery, the Supreme Court observed that there appeared to be either collusion with the developer or a failure by officials to discharge their statutory responsibilities. It directed the Chief Secretary of Haryana, the Director General of Police, all district collectors, commissioners, superintendents of police and banks concerned to comply with the freezing orders and submit compliance affidavits before the court. 
The Bench said the matter highlighted the difficulties faced by homebuyers who, despite paying the full sale consideration nearly two decades ago, continued to await possession of their homes. It observed that the case also raised broader concerns regarding the effectiveness of the regulatory framework established under RERA in ensuring enforcement of orders passed in favour of aggrieved homebuyers. 
Source - PTI

Discussion

Have something to say? Post your comment