SC mulls EOW, CBI probe into Parsvnath

The Supreme Court on Monday indicated that it may hand over the investigation into the affairs of Parsvnath Developers Ltd and Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt Ltd to the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), describing the alleged fraud on homebuyers as a “high-level fraud” warranting a comprehensive probe across all projects of the real estate group

The Supreme Court on Monday indicated that it may hand over the investigation into the affairs of Parsvnath Developers Ltd and Parsvnath Hessa Developers Pvt Ltd to the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), describing the alleged fraud on homebuyers as a “high-level fraud” warranting a comprehensive probe across all projects of the real estate group.

(Shutterstock)

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana directed the interim resolution professional (IRP) of Parsvnath Developers Ltd, which is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP), and Parsvnath Hessa to place on record exhaustive details of all pending litigation involving the companies to ascertain the scale of the alleged fraud and the number of affected homebuyers.

“We are inclined to refer the matter to the EOW, CBI for a comprehensive probe...to see how many projects are pending and how many people have been duped,” the bench observed.

The court directed Parsvnath Hessa, Parsvnath Developers, and “all its associates, allied companies and officers/directors” to furnish details of all cases pending before high courts, district courts, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and other quasi-judicial forums.

“To have an estimated idea of homebuyers who are languishing before one or more courts against R2 (Hessa) and R3 (Parsvnath), the details to be furnished will include all pending litigation,” the bench ordered.

The IRP, represented by senior advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, was also directed to submit details of every project pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the number of homebuyers involved and particulars of all financial creditors with pending claims.

The observations came after Gaggar urged the court to lift the freeze on the companies’ bank accounts, arguing that it was hampering

The directions came after Gaggar urged the court to lift the freeze on the companies’ bank accounts, arguing that it was hampering the CIRP involving 27 Parsvnath projects and more than 10,000 allottees. “The court order freezing bank accounts is coming in the way of the CIRP proceedings against 27 projects of Parsvnath involving over 10,000 allottees,” Gaggar submitted.

The bench, however, declined to consider the request separately.

“We will not consider your application in piecemeal. Give details of every project and how many homebuyers are involved. We will refer it to EOW, CBI. It is a high-level fraud these people have played,” the court remarked.

At the same time, the bench noted compliance with its earlier directions in two individual homebuyer cases. It directed the Supreme Court Registry to release demand drafts of nearly ₹2.9 crore and ₹2.7 crore to petitioners Rita Tikku and Anil Kumar Sharma, respectively. Parsvnath Hessa was also directed to complete the finishing work in both flats and hand over possession by October 31, 2026.

The proceedings arise from petitions filed by homebuyers alleging that the developers failed to comply with orders of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) directing payment of delayed possession compensation and delivery of flats. Last week, the developers deposited nearly ₹2.9 crore with the Supreme Court Registry after the court warned that the company’s top management could face imprisonment – similar to the action taken against former Unitech promoters – if they continued to defy its orders.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court froze the bank accounts of Parsvnath Hessa, Parsvnath Developers, their directors and senior officials, restrained them from creating third-party rights over assets and initiated coercive measures after observing that repeated recovery proceedings by HRERA had failed to secure “not a single penny” for affected homebuyers.