'MPID Courts Acting Daredevil; High Court Must See What Corruption Going On There': CJI Surya Kant

The Chief Justice of India on Tuesday made scathing remarks on the functioning of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) courts while refusing to stay a Bombay High Court judgment that found serious irregularities in the valuation and auction of a Haryana land parcel attached in the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a special leave petition filed by valuer Quikr Realty Pvt Ltd challenging the Bombay High Court's May 8 judgment, which had set aside the auction sale of a 35-acre land parcel in Haryana and directed that the valuer be blacklisted for five years.

During the hearing, the bench expressed deep concern over the conduct of MPID authorities and courts, with CJI Surya Kant recalling an earlier instance where an MPID court allegedly acted in defiance of a Supreme Court order.

“This MPID Court, in fact, in one of the matter, I also caught them. They are so daredevil. What a corruption going on and the High Court must take notice of it. In one of the matters, despite the fact that we had through a judicial detailed order, we had stayed and we constituted a high-powered committee headed by a former judge of this court to take over the assets of the company. Even then this MPID Court from backdate continued to execute sale deeds. We don't know what kind of Court it is there,” the CJI remarked.

The remarks came as the Court examined the Bombay High Court's findings regarding the role of the Competent Authority under the MPID Act in the auction process.

The dispute concerned a land parcel that had initially been valued at ₹74.74 crore, with a distress-sale value of approximately ₹56 crore and a circle-rate valuation of ₹95 crore. After two unsuccessful auctions with a reserve price of ₹60 crore, a fresh valuation in June 2020 pegged the property's worth at only ₹10.41 crore by treating it as agricultural land and valuing it on an “as is where is” basis. The land was eventually auctioned for ₹10.09 crore to a private developer.

Questioning the drastic reduction in valuation, the CJI observed, “We are not going to suspend or stay the operation of this order prima facie. The property of ₹100 crore you are selling through dubious procedure to a person for ₹10 crore... How are you here?”

Justice Bagchi also flagged serious concerns with the valuation exercise, noting that the land had been treated as agricultural merely on the basis of the sale deed, despite being situated in a residential sector and without any supporting change-of-land-use documentation. The Court also noted that no site inspection had preceded the revised valuation.

The Bombay High Court had found that the property was wrongly reclassified as agricultural land despite its residential location and held that the auction process suffered from serious irregularities. It described the episode as a “scam within the scam” and directed replacement of members of the Competent Authority under the MPID Act.

When Maharashtra indicated that it was planning to challenge the High Court's direction to replace the Competent Authority, the Supreme Court reacted sharply.

“We will impose exemplary cost on the state. There is a big fraud that has been detected by the High Court. In fact, the High Court should have directed registration of FIR also,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said.

Upon being informed that the Competent Authority was an officer of the rank of Deputy Collector, the CJI remarked, “He should have been arrested.”

The bench rejected the State's contention that replacing the Competent Authority would disrupt the settlement process for thousands of NSEL investors, observing that an institutional office could be manned by another officer without affecting the scheme.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appearing for the valuer, argued that Quikr Realty had not been heard by the High Court and had merely acted on the Competent Authority's instructions while conducting the valuation. He sought interim protection to enable the company to pursue review proceedings before the High Court.

However, the Supreme Court refused to grant interim relief, with Justice Bagchi observing that the record disclosed material raising serious concerns. The valuer ultimately withdrew the special leave petition with liberty to approach the High Court through a review petition, which the Supreme Court permitted.

Case : Quikr Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaiwanti (Diary No. 30200/2026).