Back
SC Orders Asset Freeze on Parsvnath Over HRERA Non-Compliance
In a stern crackdown on real estate developers who ignore , the has issued a series of against . A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, expressed deep concern over the "" shown by the builder towards orders issued by the .
A Two-Decade Wait for Homeowners The case stems from the plight of Rita and Lokaish Tikku, senior citizens who invested their life savings in the "" project in Gurugram. Despite paying approximately Rs. 1.78 crore per flat between and , with a contractual promise of possession by , the petitioners have been left waiting for nearly two decades.
After years of empty promises, the homebuyers approached HRERA, which, in , ordered the developers to provide possession and pay 9.3% interest for the delay. The builders failed to challenge or obey these orders, prompting a futile cycle of that eventually led to this Supreme Court intervention.
Arguments and Judicial Observations The petitioners argued that their struggle had become an "unending exercise in futility." The Bench noted with dismay that even when were issued by HRERA, the developer's premises remained inaccessible to authorities, suggesting a systemic failure or potential collusion within the local administrative machinery.
Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked:
" , provides a statutory mechanism to protect the interests of homebuyers. However, these cases reveal that the efficacy of such a mechanism ultimately depends upon the ability of the law to secure compliance with the orders passed thereunder."
The Court further observed that the conduct of the respondents went beyond individual grievances:
"The Respondent – Builder-cum-developers have, , displayed a for the authority of HRERA. They have ignored final orders, frustrated , turned a blind eye to the , and have even managed to evade arrest for months altogether."
Strict Coercive Measures To ensure justice is not further delayed, the Court has taken the following immediate steps: * Asset Freeze : All bank accounts of Ltd. and , including the personal accounts of their directors and officers, are frozen until further notice. * Property Restriction : The builders are strictly barred from creating third-party rights or transferring possession of any immovable assets related to the project. * Warrants Issued : have been issued against the directors of the respondent companies, requiring their personal appearance before the Court on . The Bench warned that any failure to appear will result in the issuance of .
The Road Ahead This order marks a significant turning point in the enforcement of consumer rights in the real estate sector. By directing the , the , and local district collectors to ensure compliance through , the Supreme Court has signaled a zero-tolerance policy toward builders who treat regulatory orders as mere suggestions. The matter is set for further hearing on , where the state machinery will be held to account for its role in the execution delay.
