The Supreme Court has proposed appointing an independent court receiver to oversee the completion of 16 stalled Supertech housing projects, citing a lack of progress under the existing arrangement. The projects, spread across Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Karnataka, involve nearly 50,000 housing units and thousands of homebuyers awaiting possession.
During a hearing on Tuesday, October 27, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned the progress made by NBCC India Ltd, which was appointed as the project management consultant (PMC) by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in December 2024. The court considered replacing the existing oversight committee with an independent receiver, similar to arrangements adopted in the Amrapali and Unitech cases.
The proposal follows concerns raised by homebuyers over delays in construction and expenditure on project management. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing the homebuyers, told the court that more than ₹30 crore had been spent on hiring and project management since December 2024, despite tenders not having been issued for the projects.
The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said the current arrangement had not delivered the expected progress. It indicated that an independent receiver could oversee the projects, with NBCC continuing as the PMC or being replaced by another agency, depending on the court’s assessment.
NBCC Cites Tender Progress and Plans Construction for 2027
Representing NBCC, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the court that a tender had been issued for one project and tenders for the remaining projects were being processed. He said construction was expected to begin in 2027.
An Apex Court Committee (ACC), headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice (retd) Krishna Murari, is currently overseeing the stalled projects. The committee includes representatives of financial institutions, NBCC and real estate experts.
During the hearing, the court also considered proposals from potential financiers and construction companies that could help restart work. According to the homebuyers’ counsel, the committee had rejected a construction firm’s proposal to complete the projects. A former Supertech director had also approached the committee with a financier willing to provide funds, but the proposal was rejected over concerns about high interest rates.
The bench invited all stakeholders to submit their proposals before the next hearing, scheduled for November 16, 2026. It also asked the Attorney General to suggest suitable candidates for appointment as an independent court receiver. The court said that if a suitable financier was identified, it could dissolve the existing committee and allow construction to proceed under the receiver’s supervision.
Court Rules Out Additional Financial Burden on Homebuyers
The Supreme Court emphasised that homebuyers should not face any further financial burden because of the revised project completion arrangement. It pointed to unsold housing inventory and vacant land within the project sites as potential sources of funds to support construction.
The dispute also involves the fees payable to NBCC for managing and marketing the projects. When it agreed to take over the 16 projects, NBCC sought a separate marketing fee of 1%, in addition to its 8% project management fee.
However, the NCLAT restructured the fee arrangement into a consolidated 8%, comprising 7% for project management and 1% for marketing. NBCC argued that the revised structure affected the financial viability of the projects and reduced the implementing agency’s incentive to undertake the work.
In May 2026, the NCLAT rejected NBCC’s request for exemption from provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) and its plea to increase fees on the sale of unfinished flats. During the latest hearing, Guruswamy opposed the proposed RERA exemption, arguing that it could leave homebuyers without an effective legal remedy.
The Supreme Court’s next hearing is expected to consider the proposals submitted by stakeholders, the appointment of a receiver and the arrangements needed to restart construction. The court’s priority remains completing the stalled homes without imposing additional costs on buyers who have already waited for possession.
Image-sci.gov.in
