Parsvnath Developers directors Sanjeev Kumar Jain and Rajeev Jain have been remanded to judicial custody until November 18 in 46 pending homebuyer cases involving unpaid refunds and compensation, according to an order by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The commission took the action while hearing an execution petition filed by homebuyer Abhishek Mundhra. Mundhra sought permission to withdraw his case after reaching an out-of-court settlement of Rs 1.25 crore with the company’s directors through five post-dated cheques of Rs 25 lakh each.
Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, president of the commission, refused to close the matter because there was no written settlement agreement on record and the cheques had not been encashed. The commission held that the proceedings could not end until the buyer actually received the money.
The two directors were produced before the commission from Tihar Jail and were taken into custody in all 46 matters. The commission said it had taken up the other pending cases on its own initiative because the decretal amounts awarded to homebuyers had not been cleared and execution proceedings remained pending.
The order records that the directors faced arrest warrants in five cases, had been declared proclaimed offenders in seven cases, and had pending proclaimed-offender proceedings in 34 other matters. The commission also noted that cheques issued to decree-holders in other cases had allegedly been dishonoured when presented.
The commission quoted Justice Sehgal as observing that the directors present in court had been evading the process of law in various matters. It further recorded that cheques had been issued to decree-holders but were dishonoured on presentation.
Mundhra’s request to withdraw his case will remain pending until all five cheques are encashed. The scheduled payment dates run from December 3, 2026, to April 3, 2027, according to the report.
The 46 other homebuyers have been directed to appear before the commission on November 18. The proceedings highlight the gap that can arise between a consumer commission’s award of compensation and the actual recovery of money by a homebuyer, with enforcement continuing until the ordered payment is realised.
