Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 18-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Rahul Sethi; Respondents: M/S SVS Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & others (joint‑venture builder).
  • The petitioner entered into a purchase agreement with the first respondent for a residential project named “Unihomes” in Bhopal.
  • Subsequently, the builder was taken over by Unitech Limited; several complaints led the Economic Offences Wing to register an FIR against the Managing Director and other directors.
  • The Supreme Court, in earlier proceedings, had issued a moratorium and was formulating a resolution framework for the entire Unitech group and its affiliates.
  • The petitioner approached the Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MPRERA), which directed a refund of the purchase price of Rs 19,99,723 plus interest at 10%.
  • A recovery certificate was issued but not executed; the petitioner filed a writ petition for enforcement of the certificate without impleading the first respondent.
  • The writ petition was allowed; the first respondent filed a review, which was rejected. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge’s order, directing fresh consideration, citing suppression of the builder’s participation and interference with the Supreme Court’s resolution process.
  • At the Supreme Court hearing, the first respondent’s counsel stated that 72 flats would be ready within three months and offered to provide one flat matching the petitioner’s original specifications within that period.
  • The petitioner, on instructions, indicated no interest in receiving the flat and contested the claim that the project was near completion.
  • The Court noted that the total dues computed under RERA would exceed Rs 48 lakhs, but emphasized that the matter was not a pure recovery proceeding.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court directed the respondent to pay the petitioner Rs 40,00,000 (Rs 40 lakhs) within four weeks, thereby settling the petitioner’s claim and satisfying the RERA order.
  • The order is expressly stated to be non‑precedential to avoid a flood of similar petitions that could disrupt the ongoing resolution of the Unitech group.
  • The Special Leave Petition is allowed.
  • All pending applications, including any request for impleadment of the builder, are rejected.

Topics: Real Estate Refund, Supreme Court Order