Unitech's Chandra asked to deposit `1,000 cr, no bail
23 Oct 2017 6:09 PM GMT
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain the bail plea of real estate developer Unitech's Managing Director Sanjay Chandra and asked the real estate major to deposit Rs. 1,000 crore to prove its bonafides. A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud turned down the bail plea and suggested that the partially completed flats of the real estate company spread over its 64 projects across the country be auctioned.
The suggestion came after senior counsel Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Unitech, told the court the company could sell the flats in the 64 projects to raise money to refund the flat buyers. Amicus curiae (court's advisor) Pawan Shree Agrawal told the court that Rs. 1,865 crore was needed to pay the flat buyers who want refunds.
Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Unitech, urged that Chandra is granted bail for four to five weeks, adding he would during this period submit plans for raising the money for refunding the flat buyers.
He argued that Chandra cannot raise the money required both for refunds and completing the ongoing projects without coming out.
In another case, the Apex court ordered its registry to disburse the principal amount of 26 home buyers who had booked flats in a Supertech project at Noida in Uttar Pradesh whose demolition was ordered by the Allahabad High Court.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra considered the report of advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who is assisting it as an amicus curiae, which said that out of several home buyers of Supertech's twin Emerald Towers, 26 had not received any refund.
The bench, which also comprised Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said that Rs 20 crore had been deposited with the apex court registry by the prominent real estate firm and the money would be used to pay back the principal amount to the home buyers who have received nothing by way of refund.
It also asked Amicus Curiae Agarwal to assist in disbursal.
The court said the issue of interest and the deduction of return on investment (RoI) from the principal, payable to home buyers, would be dealt with at later stage.
Next Story
