New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed all the upcoming 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.
Observing that it seems that an attempt has been made to “frustrate” the apex court’s orders, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy said that “proposed meetings shall stand stayed till further orders”.
The bench also issued notice to the company saying that “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 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.
It had directed the home buyers across the country to hold meetings for approval or disapproval of proposed scheme of compromise to enable the company to complete the pending projects and hand over the flats.
Justice Sudershan Kumar Misra, who retired on September 6, in his order said that four meetings of home buyers should be held on November 20 at Mohali, Punjab, on November 27 at Chennai, on December 4 at Gurgaon and on December 11 at 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, had 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.