M/S Svs Buildcon Private Limited vs Rahul Sethi

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
1 WA-453-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
nd
ON THE 2 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 453 of 2026
M/S SVS BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
PRATAP BHANU SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Rishabh Singh
- Advocate for petitionr.
Dr. S.S. Chouhan - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Dhruv Varma - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Siddharth Batra - Advocate (through V.C.) For Unitech Board
appeared for respondent.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 455 of 2026
M/S SVS BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
RAHUL SETHI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Rishabh Singh -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Anurag Gohil - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
2 WA-453-2026
Dr. S.S.Chouhan - Government Advocate for Respondent/State.

Shri Siddharth Batra - Advocate for Uniteh Board.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal J.
These two connected Writ Appeals are filed under Section 2(1) of
the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005, by the Appellant, M/s SVS Buildcon Private Limited.
They challenge the common order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the
Learned Single Judge, by which Review Petition No. 907/2023 and the
connected Review Petition No. 1527/2025 were both dismissed. As a
result, the earlier order dated 01.07.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.
20694/2021 (filed by Respondent No. 1, Rahul Sethi) and the earlier
order dated 10.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 13136/2023 (filed by
Respondent No. 2, Pratap Bhanu Singh) were both allowed to stand.
Since both Review Petitions arise from the same facts and the same legal
question, these appeals are being decided together by this common
judgment.
2. The Appellant, M/s SVS Buildcon Private Limited, is a Joint
Venture company. It was formed on 20.03.2009 under a Joint Venture
Agreement between M/s Anshil Estate Private Limited (a sister concern
of Unitech Limited) and M/s Collage Group Infrastructure Private
Limited, on a 50:50 shareholding basis. On the same day, a Development
Agreement was signed with the landowner, M/s Khaneja Properties
Private Limited, giving the Appellant the right to build a residential
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
3 WA-453-2026
project called “Unihomes” and a commercial project called “Great India

Place (GIP) Mall” at Village Chichli, Kolar Road, Bhopal. Later,
through an Affiliate Deed of Assignment, Unitech Holdings Limited
took over the shareholding earlier held in the Appellant company.
3. Because of delays in this and other Unitech projects across the
country, many cases were filed against Unitech Limited. On 31.07.2015,
the Economic Offences Wing registered an FIR against the Managing
Directors of Unitech Limited, Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, who
were later arrested. Their bail proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5978-5979/2017, gradually turned into a much
larger process for resolving the affairs of the entire Unitech Group.
4. Recognising the scale of the problem, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed a series of protective orders. By interim orders dated
30.10.2017, 20.11.2017, and 09.04.2018, the Court directed that no
forceful or coercive action be taken against Unitech Limited or its group
companies by any court, forum, or authority. On 20.01.2020, in Civil
Appeal No. 10856/2016 (Bhupinder Singh vs. Unitech Ltd.), the
Supreme Court removed the existing Board of Directors of Unitech
Limited and replaced it with a new Board, headed by Shri Yudhvir
Singh Malik, IAS (Retd.), appointed by the Union Government. The
Court also ordered a Moratorium, that is, a stay on both new and existing
legal proceedings and on the enforcement of orders already passed
against the company. By a later order dated 24.03.2021 in the same Civil
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
4 WA-453-2026
Appeal, the Court held that the new Board would be responsible for the

management and control of the Unitech Group, including all its
affiliates, trusts and subsidiaries, and clarified that the order dated
20.01.2020 is applicable to all group entities of Unitech Limited.
Pursuant to these orders, the new Board prepared a “Resolution
Framework of Unitech Group”, which, under Heading 1.7, defines
“Unitech Group” to include the Company along with its subsidiaries,
joint ventures, and Project Entities. The Appellant is named at page 189
of the Framework as a Joint Venture of the group, and the project
“Unihomes, Bhopal” is listed at page 29. We may also note that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court continues to actively supervise this matter, its
most recent order being dated 29.04.2026, dealing with disbursement of
recovered funds to homebuyers and other claimants, which shows that
the centralised, court-monitored resolution mechanism for the Unitech
Group is still very much in operation today.
5. Two separate homebuyers' claims form the background of the
two connected Review Petitions. Respondent No. 1, Rahul Sethi,
obtained a refund order from MPRERA, Bhopal, on 08.08.2018 for Rs.
19,99,723/-, followed by a Recovery Certificate dated 19.08.2019. When
this remained unexecuted, he filed Writ Petition No. 20694/2021,
without making the Appellant a party. Since the State did not object, the
Writ Court, by order dated 01.07.2022, directed the Collector and
Tehsildar, Kolar, Bhopal, to execute the Recovery Certificate within two
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
5 WA-453-2026
months, without going into a detailed hearing on merits.

6. Respondent No. 2, Pratap Bhanu Singh, similarly obtained a
Recovery Certificate dated 18.11.2020 for Rs. 40,90,825/- from
MPRERA, Bhopal, in Execution Case No. EX.-NBPL-18-0150. On
learning of the Supreme Court's Moratorium, MPRERA itself put the
execution on hold vide order dated 07.07.2022, and directed the District
Magistrate, Bhopal, vide letter dated 24.01.2023, to keep recovery in
abeyance for as long as the Moratorium continued. Despite this,
Respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 13136/2023, again without
making the Appellant a party, and without telling the Court about the
Moratorium or MPRERA's own deferment orders. An ex parte order
dated 10.07.2023 was passed directing the District Collector, Bhopal, to
execute the Recovery Certificate within three months, unless stayed by a
superior court.
7. The Appellant came to know of the order dated 01.07.2022
and, subsequently, of the ex parte order dated 10.07.2023, and
accordingly filed Review Petition No. 907/2023 and Review Petition No.
1527/2025 respectively, seeking recall of the said orders on the ground
that the Appellant, being the developer whose project assets were the
subject matter of execution, had never been made a party. While these
Review Petitions remained pending, a Panchnama was drawn up on
05.02.2026 in contempt proceedings for attaching the project's assets,
which brought home to the Appellant the urgency of the matter and led
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
6 WA-453-2026
to the filing of Intervention Applications as well. Both Review Petitions

were thereafter dismissed by the common order dated 06.02.2026 now
under appeal.
8. In dismissing both Review Petitions, the Learned Single
Judge placed strong reliance on Paragraph 2.2.4 of the Resolution
Framework, titled “Projects under JV (with operational control with the
JV partner)”, under which “Unihomes, Bhopal” and “Great India Place,
Bhopal” are listed at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 as projects where the day-to-day
operational control lies with the Joint Venture partner and not with
Unitech Limited. On this basis, the Learned Single Judge held that the
Moratorium protects only formal “subsidiaries” of Unitech, and does not
extend to Joint Venture companies such as the Appellant where Unitech
has no direct operational control. It was further held that the order dated
24.03.2021, which allowed the new Board to appoint or remove directors
and trustees of subsidiaries and trusts, did not extend any such power
over independent Joint Venture partners, and that the landowner, M/s
Khaneja Properties Private Limited, also could not claim any protection,
since it was merely a party to a Development Agreement. The Learned
Single Judge also recorded that the Appellant was offered two options
either to approach the Supreme Court directly for clarification, or to
route the homebuyers' claims through the One Man Committee headed
by Justice (Retd.) A.M. Sapre but that the Appellant's Senior Counsel
declined both, insisting instead that the burden of seeking such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
7 WA-453-2026
clarification lay on the homebuyers.

9. We may also note that the Learned Single Judge, while
dismissing the Review Petitions, made a strong observation to the effect
that justice cannot take a back seat merely because a party is financially
powerful, and that Courts remain equally bound to protect the rights of
the ordinary citizen. This Bench respectfully shares that concern, and
nothing in this judgment should be read as taking away from it. Our task,
however, is the narrower one of examining whether the orders under
challenge were validly passed in view of the Supreme Court's continuing
Moratorium and the requirements of natural justice.
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued: (i) that the
Moratorium must be read by looking at the project and the group as a
whole, and not merely at the strict corporate form; (ii) that Paragraph
2.2.4 of the Resolution Framework only allocates day to-day operational
responsibility for internal administrative convenience, and cannot be
read to exclude the Appellant and its project from the protective
umbrella that Heading 1.7 of the very same Framework expressly
extends to all “joint ventures” and “Project Entities” of the group (iii)
that other forums, including the Delhi High Court, the M.P. Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal, and the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, have all stayed parallel proceedings against this very
Appellant and project; (iv) that both writ petitions were filed and
decided without making the Appellant a party, even though the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
8 WA-453-2026
Appellant was the developer whose project assets were directly the

subject matter of execution; and (v) that allowing scattered, project-by-
project recovery through regional revenue authorities would disturb the
common, Supreme Court-supervised fund meant for all homebuyers of
the Unitech Group, to the disadvantage of similarly placed persons
elsewhere.
11. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has opposed the
appeals, mainly arguing that the Resolution Framework itself, at
Paragraph 2.2.4, places “Unihomes, Bhopal” under the operational
control of the Joint Venture partner and not of Unitech Limited, and that
the statutory rights of bona fide homebuyers under the RERA Act cannot
be kept on hold indefinitely under the cover of a group-wide
restructuring exercise meant primarily for Unitech's own subsidiaries.
12. We have heard learned counsel for both sides at length and
have gone through the material placed on record, including the RERA
orders, the writ court orders, and the Resolution Framework, particularly
Heading 1.7 and Paragraph 2.2.4 thereof. The Resolution Framework for
the Unitech Group, having itself been submitted before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court pursuant to its orders, is placed on record before us, and
the relevant Clauses 1.7 and 2.2.4 thereof are reproduced hereinbelow:
(lxi) “Promoters” means existing promoters as identified in the Annual
Report 2016-2017 of the Company, and includes:
(a) the ‘promoter group’ (as defined in the SEBI (Issue of Capital &
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
9 WA-453-2026
Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018);

(b) Related Parties of such promoters and promoter group; and
(c) ‘persons acting in concert’ (as defined in SEBI (Substantial
Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011) with such
promoters and promoter group.
(lxxx) “Unitech Group” shall collectively mean the Company, its
subsidiaries, joint ventures, affiliates and Project Entities.
2.2.4 Residential Projects under JV (with operational control with the JV
partner)
(i) In addition to the residential Projects, as mentioned in clause 2.2.2 of
this Resolution Framework, the Company is also involved in other
residential Projects, as stated below.
Sr. No. Project Name Type of Project Location Project-developing-entities
1 Unihomes Group Housing Bhopal SVS Buildcon Private Ltd.
The
2
MNT Buildcon Private
Group Housing Dehradun
Residences
Ltd.
13. On the question of suppression of facts, the position is not
identical in the two matters. In the case of Respondent No. 2 (Writ
Petition No. 13136/2023), it is clearly established that MPRERA had
itself put the recovery on hold in view of the Supreme Court's
Moratorium, and had communicated the same to the District Magistrate,
Bhopal, as already noticed in paragraph 6 above, and that Respondent
No. 2 did not disclose either of these facts to the Writ Court. In the case
of Respondent No. 1 (Writ Petition No. 20694/2021), no such express
deferment order by MPRERA is shown to be on record; the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
10 WA-453-2026
01.07.2022 appears to have been passed as a simple administrative

direction, on the State raising no objection, without any real contest.
Even so, in both matters, the Appellant the developer whose project
assets were the very subject matter of execution was never made a party
and never got any opportunity to be heard before either order was
passed. This, by itself, is a serious defect going to the root of both
proceedings.
14. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Learned
Single Judge that a Joint Venture stands outside the protection meant for
“subsidiaries”, merely because Paragraph 2.2.4 of the Resolution
Framework assigns day to day operational control of a project to the
Joint Venture partner. This view overlooks a crucial clarification made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself, in the very proceeding from which
the Moratorium and the Resolution Framework arise. By its order dated
24.03.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10856/2016 (Bhupinder Singh v.
Unitech Ltd.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under Paragraph 2(1), has
held and clarified in express terms that:
“The new Board shall be responsible for the management and
control of the Unitech Group (including all its affiliates, trusts,
subsidiaries etc.). The Order passed by this Court dated 20 January 2020
is applicable to all group entities of Unitech Ltd.”
Once the Apex Court has itself explicitly held that the moratorium
and management control extends to all affiliates and group entities, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
11 WA-453-2026
necessarily takes within its fold the joint ventures of the group. Once the

Apex Court has itself clarified the width of its own Moratorium in these
terms, it is not open to a Writ Court, while examining review petitions
arising out of the very same Moratorium, to cut down that width by
reference to an internal administrative clause such as Paragraph 2.2.4,
which merely allocates day to day operational responsibility for a project
and says nothing at all about who is, or is not, entitled to protection.
Heading 1.7 of the Resolution Framework, which expressly defines
“Unitech Group” to include “joint ventures” and “Project Entities”, is
entirely consistent with this clarification and reinforces it, rather than
departing from it. We accordingly hold that the Appellant, being a Joint
Venture expressly named in the Resolution Framework and whose
project “Unihomes, Bhopal” is equally named therein, is very much
within the protective umbrella of the Moratorium, and the view taken by
the Learned Single Judge to the contrary cannot be sustained.
15. We may add that the same order dated 24.03.2021, in the
latter part of Paragraph 2(1), also empowered the new Board of Unitech
Limited to appoint or remove directors and trustees of subsidiaries and
trusts. This is a separate and narrower administrative power, dealing only
with the internal governance of such entities, it does not curtail, and was
never intended to curtail, the wider clarification discussed in paragraph
14 above, by which the Moratorium itself was extended to all group
entities, including joint ventures. The Learned Single Judge, with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
12 WA-453-2026
respect, appears to have treated this narrower governance clause as if it

defined the outer limit of the Moratorium itself, whereas the two operate
on entirely different planes one deals with who may administer certain
group entities, and the other deals with who is protected from coercive
proceedings and enforcement of orders. Reading a limitation into the
wider protective clause on the strength of this narrower governance
clause is not warranted, and would end up curtailing a protection that the
Supreme Court's own order has already extended to a project forming
part of the Unitech Group.
16. It is a settled principle of law that an order obtained by
hiding facts which go to the very jurisdiction or fairness of a proceeding
is bad in law from its inception, and that a party guilty of such
concealment cannot be allowed to keep the benefit of such an order. This
principle directly applies to the order dated 10.07.2023 passed in Writ
Petition No. 13136/2023, in view of the suppression noted in paragraph
13 above. As regards the order dated 01.07.2022 passed in Writ Petition
No. 20694/2021, the same degree of suppression is not established. Even
so, the Appellant was never made a party, even though its project was
directly affected by that order. This, by itself, is a serious defect going to
the very root of the proceeding, and is exactly the kind of error that
review jurisdiction exists to correct [Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, as applicable to review]. For these reasons, the
dismissal of both Review Petitions cannot be sustained and is set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
13 WA-453-2026
17. We are conscious that both Respondents are individual

allottees who have waited a long time for relief, and that the interest of
homebuyers as a class deserves serious weight. It is precisely to protect
that class interest that the Supreme Court has, since 20.01.2020,
supervised a common resolution mechanism for the entire Unitech
Group, including the option of routing homebuyers' claims through the
One Man Committee headed by Justice (Retd.) A.M. Sapre, and
continues to actively monitor disbursement of recovered funds, as
reflected in its recent order dated 29.04.2026. Allowing scattered,
project-by-project recovery through different regional authorities,
however genuine an individual claim may appear on its own, carries the
real risk of one homebuyer getting priority over hundreds of similarly
placed allottees of the same and other Unitech Group projects, defeating
the very purpose of a common, supervised mechanism. Directing the
Respondents' claims through that mechanism, or through fresh writ
proceedings in which the Appellant is properly made a party and heard,
does not take away the Respondents' underlying right to recovery; it only
ensures that this right is decided consistently with the mechanism
designed for the very class to which the Respondents belong. Nothing in
this judgment shall prevent either Respondent from pursuing the Sapre
Committee route, without prejudice to the restored writ proceedings.
18. For the reasons discussed above, the common order dated
06.02.2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
14 WA-453-2026
907/2023 and Review Petition No. 1527/2025, and the underlying orders

dated 01.07.2022 (in Writ Petition No. 20694/2021) and 10.07.2023 (in
Writ Petition No. 13136/2023), cannot be sustained in law and are set
aside.
19. Writ Petition No. 20694/2021 and Writ Petition No.
13136/2023 are restored to their original numbers. Respondent No. 1
(Rahul Sethi) and Respondent No. 2 (Pratap Bhanu Singh) are directed to
add the Appellant, M/s SVS Buildcon Private Limited, as a party
respondent in their respective writ petitions within four weeks.
20. The Writ Court is requested to give a proper and meaningful
opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and all other concerned parties,
and to decide both writ petitions afresh in accordance with law, keeping
in view the scope of Heading 1.7 and Paragraph 2.2.4 of the Resolution
Framework and the continuing supervision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court over the Unitech Group, and without being influenced by any
observation made in this judgment. Given that the underlying claims are
already several years old, it would be appropriate for the Writ Court to
endeavour to decide both matters within four months of the Appellant
being impleaded.
21. In the result, both connected Writ Appeals are allowed to the
above extent. The common order dated 06.02.2026 passed in Review
Petition No. 907/2023 and Review Petition No. 1527/2025 is set aside,
and both Review Petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:49360
15 WA-453-2026
There shall be no order as to costs. Any pending interlocutory

applications stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed in connected cases.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/9/2026 3:02:18 PM