LawRato

Supreme Court denies bail to Unitech group director Sanjay Chandra, asks to deposit Rs 1,000 crore

October 23, 2017


The anticipatory bail application of Unitech's director Sanjay Chandra was rejected by Supreme Court on Monday. The court also directed the developer to deposit Rs 1,000 crore. A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud recommended that the partially finished flats of the developer spread over its 64 projects in the country be auctioned. The recommendation of the bench came after senior counsel Ranjit Kumar told the court the developer could sell its partially completed flats in the 64 projects to raise money to refund the homebuyers. The appointed amicus curiae Pawanshri Agrawal informed the court that Rs 1,865 crore was required to pay the homebuyers who seek refunds. Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Unitech, urged that Sanjay Chandra be granted bail for 4-5 weeks, adding he would during this period submit roadmap for raising money for refunding homebuyers. He also argued that director Sanjay Chandra, Unitech Group, cannot raise the funds needed for both refunds and completing the ongoing projects without coming out the jail. Earlier also the Supreme Court, denied bail to Unitech's director Sanjay Chandra after learning the realtor has to deliver 16,299 flats to homebuyers, for which the Unitech group has already received an amount of Rs 7, 816 crore.

 

Latest Legal News


Supreme Court’s Verdict on the Same-Sex Marriage; No Fundamental Right to Marry
3 Bills to Renew India's Criminal Justice System presented in Lok Sabha; All you Need to Know
Data Protection Bill Passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha; Decoding the DPDP Bill
High Court; Denying Physical Intimacy to Wife not Cruelty under IPC
PoSH Act Implementation
‘Sorry state of affairs' in PoSH Act implementation; SC orders Govts. to ensure ICCs are constituted
Widow can't inherit Property if Husband did not own it: Punjab & Haryana HC
Widow can't inherit Property if Husband did not own it: Punjab & Haryana HC