Bikram Chatterji & ors. vs. Union of India & ors

by

“The inevitable truth is that law is not static and immutable but ever-increasingly dynamic and grows with the ongoing passage of time.”- Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian

The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in favour of over 42,000 homebuyers in the projects being constructed by the Amrapali group of companies in Noida and Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh was a huge relief for the homebuyers.

The ruling by the SC not only punished the Amrapali Group but will also discourage all the errant stakeholders and developers in future, who are used to of circumventing the law.

Uttar Pradesh government had executed lease deeds to provide a parcel of lands in Noida and Greater Noida to build housing projects with M/s Amrapali Silicon City Private Limited and other related entities (Amrapali Group). 12 housing projects were being developed (7 in Noida & 5 in Greater Noida) by M/s Amrapali Group and was supposed to deliver 42000 housing units to the home buyers.

Homebuyers waited for years to get an allotment of their dream homes but the Amrapali Group failed to deliver the housing units to the aggrieved families. A Writ Petition (Civil) № 940/2025 was filed by homebuyers under the case titled — “Bikram Chatterji & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Supreme court of India.

In their Writ Petition, the home buyers pleaded that Amrapali Group failed to deliver the housing units to the respective home buyers within the prescribed time limit, non-compliance of RERA and siphoning of funds. They also pleaded that occupancy of the home is given at the earliest. In addition to this, the pleas of homebuyers were challenged by Noida and Greater Noida authorities with whom the Amrapali group had executed Lease deeds on a parcel of lands over which the projects were being developed.

The Supreme Court, after considering the contentions of both the parties and report of the Financial Auditors, wherein, siphoning off of the funds by Amrapali Group was confirmed, observed that:-

  1. It was the duty of the Authorities to take affirmative action for effective management of Lease deeds grants in favour of Amrapali Group,
  2. Authorities were bound to ensure that builders act per the objective behind the acquisition of land and conditions on which allotment had been made,
  3. The authorities were very negligent in their conduct and did not take any corrective step against Amrapali Group. The authorities not only failed to observe the terms of Lease Deeds and keep track of projects but also permitted the Amrapali Group to execute sub-lease of projects, thereby allowing Amrapali group to earn a huge amount,
  4. The authorities have colluded with Banks and Amrapali Group for diversion of funds of homebuyers. The banks were negligent in their conduct and decided to sanction loans to Amrapali Group without verifying the conditions of the NOC’s being issued by the Authorities,
  5. The provisions of RERA Act have been violated by Amrapali Group.

The Supreme Court after stating the aforementioned observations held the judgment that:

  1. The Supreme Court upheld the claims of homebuyers over those of financial creditors and government authorities.
  2. The RERA registration of Amrapali Group under RERA Act shall stand cancelled and various projects shall now henceforth be completed by NBCC (India) Ltd.
  3. The various lease deeds granted in favour of Amrapali Group for projects in question stand cancelled and all rights shall henceforth vest in Court Receiver.

The Authorities and Banks shall have no right to sell the flats of the home buyers or the land leased out for the realization of their dues and all their dues shall have to be recovered from the sale of other properties of Amrapali Group which have been attached.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has delivered one of its landmark decision/judgment in light of the various difficulties being faced by the homebuyers all over India.

This judgment of the Supreme Court in the case related to aggrieve 42000 Amrapali Homebuyers could be treated as a precedent to streamline incomplete housing projects, a mess created by real estate developers across the country.

The court has played a leading role in sorting out the complex legal hurdles, which barred time-bound completion of the incomplete Amrapali housing projects.

Here’s a clear and detailed summary of the landmark case Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., decided by the Supreme Court of India on 23 July 2025 (W.P. (C) No. 940/2025):

⚖️ Case Background

  • Petitioners: Bikram Chatterji and other homebuyers of the Amrapali Group.
  • Respondents: Union of India, state authorities (NOIDA & Greater NOIDA), banks, and the Amrapali Group.
  • The petitioners alleged a massive fraud: Amrapali collected payment for ~42,000 homes between 2025–2025 but failed to build the projects. Funds were allegedly siphoned to shell companies. A forensic audit confirmed diversion of both homebuyers’ payments and bank loans .

🏛️ Key Legal Issues

  1. Whether the NOC and lease rights granted to Amrapali were legally valid.
  2. Whether homebuyers qualify as secured creditors under mortgage laws.
  3. Whether the banks, local authorities, and Amrapali were complicit in misappropriating funds.
  4. How to ensure project completion and housing delivery to homebuyers.

🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court’s Findings & Directions

1. Fund Diversion & “Fraud Vitiates” Doctrine

  • The Court confirmed the forensic audit’s findings that funds were diverted for promoter/personnel gain.
  • Invoked the principle that fraud vitiates all and cannot be allowed to stand.

2. Homebuyers Are Not Secured Creditors

  • Held that homebuyers do not have a mortgage charge; mortgage/security lies with banks under law.
  • Thus, homebuyers’ funds were vulnerable.

3. Breach of Public Trust Doctrine

  • NOIDA and Greater NOIDA were negligent, failing to monitor Amrapali’s compliance despite conditions set on the land.
  • Authorities even allowed sub-leasing without monitoring payment conditions, breaching trust .

4. Violation of RERA & Misuse of Force-Majeure

  • Amrapali failed RERA obligations.
  • Attempted to misuse force-majeure provisions were rejected by the Court .

5. Future Directions: Recovery, Supervision & Completion

  • Registration under RERA cancelled for Amrapali (per other reports) .
  • Directed ED to investigate money laundering (PMLA/ FEMA).
  • Empowered NBCC (with 8% service fee) to complete projects using funds from escrow accounts set up with homebuyers.
  • Directed banks to recover dues from Amrapali assets excluding project properties reserved for home delivery .

📌 Outcome and Significance

  • Supreme Court held authorities and banks partly complicit, necessitating judicial intervention to protect homebuyers.
  • The case set a precedent for applying public trust doctrine and strengthening RERA enforcement.
  • It showcases the judiciary’s role in ensuring project completion, safeguarding buyer interests, and upholding prosecutorial mechanisms (ED, NBCC oversight).

📖 Quick Summary Table

Issue SC Finding / Directive
Fund diversion by Amrapali Proven; fraud principles invoked
Homebuyers’ creditor status Not secured; banks hold mortgage
Official negligence (NOIDA, banks) Breach of public trust; complicit
RERA violations Confirmed; force-majeure rejected
Project completion & recovery NBCC appointed; escrow created
Legal/prosecution directives ED to act under PMLA/FEMA

🔎 Commentary & Analysis

Legal scholars note that this judgment represents a paradigm shift in real estate jurisprudence:

  • Prioritizes homebuyer protection over bank mortgages in event of fraud.
  • Courts actively supervise resolution in stalled projects via third-party agencies.
  • Enforces statutory safeguards of RERA and principles of public trust

Would you like:

  • A PDF summary or infographic on this case?
  • A comparison with other stalled-project judicial interventions?
  • A draft legal note or citation sheet for academic use?

Let me know—happy to prepare it!

Bikram Chatterji & ors. vs. Union of India & ors

BIKRAM-CHATTERJEE-ORS.-V.-UNION-OF-INDIA- …

WP (C) No. 940 of 2025 Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union …

Leave a Comment

error: