“You will have to pay back the money to homebuyers. We are least bothered about the financial status,” a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Adarsh Kumar Goel said when it was informed that some builders have said they had no funds to pay back the homebuyers.
The apex court directed Supertech to pay 10 per cent of the invested amount per month from January 5, 2015 to 17 litigants within four weeks.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for Supertech, said the apex court should not “act like a banker”. “Not all homebuyers are against us and some of them have even supported the firm and filed an appeal against the High Court order,” he said, adding “there is a difference between Unitech’s case and us”.
They did not have a building while we have a building and funds invested with us have been used for construction."
He said a total of 628 people had approached the company, of whom 274 have sought alternate arrangements, 74 asked for re-investment and 108 have sought refund. To this, the bench asked why Supertech was not giving back the money to all the investors. Dhawan said there was a court order saying only those who have applied on time will get the money back and the firm was paying back the money to them. Counsels for homebuyers refuted Supertech's claim and said they were not getting the money on time.
The apex court also asked the National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) to submit its report by October 25, after inspecting Supertech's Emerald Towers in Noida to ascertain whether the two 40-storey buildings were built in green area in violation of the sanctioned plan. It had observed that the homebuyers should not be made to suffer on account of ongoing litigation and their money should be refunded if they ask for it.
Earlier, it had directed the company to deposit Rs 5 crore in its Registry as part of refund to homebuyers for the project in which Allahabad High Court had ordered demolition of the buildings.
Supertech in a statement said: "Few allottees of our Apex and Ceyane Towers who were taking Return on Investment (ROI) from us, went to the Supreme Court seeking refund of their investment. The Supreme Court directed the company vide its order today to continue their ROI till main matter is decided, and further directed to clear if any ROI payment is pending, within four weeks."
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)