SC warns Unitech's bosses of contempt, if terms not honoured

The Supreme Court today warned the Chairman and directors of reality major Unitech Hi-tech Developers Ltd that they will be liable for contempt if the terms of settlement they have entered into with three home buyers, who are yet to get their flats, were not honoured.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan, which disposed of the appeal of home buyers, granted them liberty to approach the court if the terms agreed upon in three memorandums of settlement were not adhered by the firm.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the realty firm, said the group had entered into the settlement agreement with the three buyers and agreed to give alternate plots to their satisfaction in Burgundy towers in Noida.

He said that Rs 5 crore which the firm was asked to deposit with the court should be transferred to Rs 15 crore directed to be deposited in another case concerning the group.
The bench, agreed to the contention of the senior counsel and directed the registry to deposit Rs 5 crore with the Rs 15 crore directed to be paid in another case related to Unitech's Vistas project.
The bench's order came during the hearing of a plea filed by Unitech against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) October 12, 2015 order which directed the firm to pay compensation and litigation costs for delay in handing over three flats in project Burgundy in Sector 96 of Noida in Uttar Pradesh.

In the Vistas project case earlier, the apex court had asked the firm to deposit Rs 15 crore--the principal amount paid by 38 home buyers in two delayed projects of the builder in Gurgaon and Noida.

The court had in July directed the company to deposit an amount of Rs 5 crore in its Registry for failing to hand over apartments in Noida area to the home buyers which was to be given three years ago.
The apex consumer commission had also directed Unitech to hand over possession of the flats booked by Diwakar Mishra and others on or before October 31, 2017.

The complainants had moved the commission alleging that despite having paid more than 95 per cent of the agreed sale consideration to the real-estate major, the possession of the flats have not been offered to them and the construction was "still far from complete".