'Will Jail You, You Duped Whole Country' : Supreme Court Warns Parsvnath Directors Over Non-Compliance With HRERA Orders

The Supreme Court yesterday again came down on Haryana-based Parsvnath Developers, calling on its directors to deposit the total recovery amount in connection with undelivered flats or else face jail.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with writ petitions filed by senior citizen homebuyers in the Parsvnath Exotica Project (Gurugram), who have been awaiting possession of their flats since over 2 decades despite payment of entire consideration.

Earlier, the Court had passed a slew of coercive directions against the directors, calling for their appearance and freezing their personal bank accounts. It had further passed remarks against the Haryana authorities (considering their non-action despite the Developers' non-compliance with HRERA orders) and called for compliance affidavits by the Haryana Chief Secretary, the DGP, all Collectors and all banks concerned.

Yesterday, Senior Addl. Advocate General Lokesh Singhal, for Haryana, informed that the Chief Secretary, the DGP and most of the Deputy Commissioners had filed the relevant affidavits (while some were in process). The same were filed last evening; hence they were not on record.

On behalf of the developers, Senior Advocates Narendra Hooda and Rajive Bhalla entered appearance. Hooda submitted that the company was undergoing insolvency proceedings since April 30.

Unconvinced, the CJI remarked, "If they don't comply with this order in 1 week, I will send them to jail and I will see who releases them on bail! Who dares to release them, I will see. Making mockery...whole country has been duped by them."

Senior Advocate Priya Hingorani, for the petitioner, on the other hand, apprised that Parsvnath 'Hessa' Developers was not under insolvency. She underlined that the homebuyers who were not delivered possession of flats included senior citizens and young couples who infused their hard-earned money into the project. "I would have expected them to bring the demand drafts today in court", she averred.

"We will provide them same treatment as Unitech people had. They will spend some years in jail, they will understand everything. Entire system has been hijacked", the CJI said in response.

When Hooda attempted to explain some facts, the CJI cut him short saying, "we will not hear a single fact unless you deposit the entire amount here".

In the order, the bench recorded that a "feeble attempt" was sought to be made by the developers to explain non-compliance with the HRERA's orders, by averring that insolvency proceedings had commenced against the developer.

Before execution of the non-bailable warrants (issued by HRERA), the bench deemed it fit to grant one last opportunity to the Developers to deposit the entire recoverable amount with the Court's registry, along with interest of 12 percent p.a. (within a week).

It was further directed that the earlier interim directions freezing the directors' personal accounts shall continue.

When an inability to make the deposit was expressed in light of the Court's interim condition, the CJI asked the respondents to make a statement on affidavit that they were willing to make the entire deposit.

At this point, Hingorani pointed out that the Court has only directed freezing of the directors' accounts in Punjab and Haryana, although, they have accounts in Delhi as well.

Later, Bhalla requested some time to come up with a "workable plan", but the CJI exclaimed,

"No, no. There is no question. Please don't irritate us by saying 'workable plan'! What is a workable plan? You have made everything unworkable on earth. We are not going to consider any plan. Our order is very clear. If you can give the bank accounts alongwith amount, we can direct transfer of that amount."

The CJI further commented that Developers easily share bank account details when they have to dupe people and siphon off money. To take credit, people claim themselves to be their Directors, but when the question of responsibility comes, they tend to disassociate as mere employees.

It was also expressed that the Court was considering the case from an Article 142 standpoint; therefore, provisions of the Companies Act or any other law could not be an impediment. "This business of insolvency...we are not going to accept. We will auction all the properties under the Court order and see how people are paid", CJI Kant said.

"They are not allowed to draw a single penny till all these persons who are running from pillar to post are paid their entire amount alongwith interest. And next time, the order will be to send to jail. We are again warning! Let there not be any misunderstanding about our order", the CJI said further.

Insofar as Bhalla's submission that the Developers were willing to deposit the entire amount and will file an affidavit to that effect, Justice Mohana remarked, "all this had to come only after these people (petitioner) had to come to the Supreme Court, after 20 years? [you could not have] paid earlier? how many court orders, how many warrants?"

When it was pointed out by Hooda that out of 789 flats, 700 are already occupied, and 4 towers have not obtained OC (Occupation Clearance), Hingorani countered that in her client's flat neither plumbing nor wiring had been done. Instead, she was being pressured to take the flat as it is while foregoing compensation/execution proceedings. Objecting, Hooda claimed that in the subject tower, there are 38 flats, of which 30 are occupied.

Hingorani explained the same saying that the other persons sorted out the deficits out of their own pockets.

CJI Kant, unswayed by the Developers' submissions, commented, "comply with the order. We are not appeased by this statement that 30 are occupied, 10 are unoccupied. When you start harassing people, some of them must have compromised with their fate. Does it mean everything is legalized?"

At last, Hooda said that the Developers will try to make a "genuine attempt" and may be given 2 weeks. CJI Kant however retorted, "genuine attempt? who are you telling and about whom are you telling? as if we don't know about these builders! whole country knows their fraudulent activities!"

Case Title : RITA TIKKU v. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY | W.P.(C) No. 640/2026