The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Delhi high court order, which had directed realty firm Unitech to hold meetings with home buyers and opening escrow accounts for completion of delayed projects.
A bench of justices, Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, said the execution proceedings in the cases filed by the home buyers before the NCDRC, which were stayed after the Delhi HC order, will now continue.
The high court had on September 2 granted an opportunity to beleaguered real estate firm to complete its delayed housing projects and hand over possession of flats to the buyers by opening escrow accounts and using the money deposited in it solely for these projects.
The apex court, on November 18, had stayed all the meetings of homebuyers of Unitech Ltd for giving their approval or disapproval to a proposed compromise scheme forwarded by the company to enable it to complete pending projects.
The bench had also issued notice to the company, saying “there is suspicion that it is trying to subvert the order of this court”.
It said that people who were successful at the level of the national consumer commission and are before the apex court, should get their money back from the developer.
The Delhi HC had directed the home buyers across the country to hold meetings for approval or disapproval of proposed scheme of compromise so the company can complete pending projects and hand over the flats.
Justice Sudershan Kumar Misra, who retired on September 6, in his order, said four meetings of home buyers should be held on November 20 in Mohali, Punjab, on November 27 in Chennai, on December 4 in Gurgaon and on December 11 in Noida.
The company had told the high court that it would open escrow accounts in which the amounts received from the buyers and sale of lands would be deposited, and the money would be used solely for completing the delayed housing projects.
The court had put in “abeyance” all the proceedings pending before different forums against Unitech Ltd to enable it to fulfil its commitment towards homebuyers by handing over possession of flats. It also appointed a court commissioner to monitor the functioning of the escrow account.
It had clarified that cases in which directions had been issued or might be issued in future by the apex court to the company in this regard should stand exempted from the scope of the order.