After finding decade-long delays in Rose Valley refunds, court orders ₹550 crore depositor corpus disbursed by November 15, 2026

The Asset Disposal Committee (ADC) was constituted under earlier High Court orders to oversee the sale of Rose Valley Group assets and disbursement of proceeds to depositors.

Mahijas Infra Pvt. Ltd. entered into a one-year management agreement with Chocolate Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (CHPL) to operate Park Prime Hotel, Durgapur.

Mahijas claimed it spent approximately ₹93.27 lakh on labour liabilities, utilities, taxes and repairs, and continued operating the hotel after the agreement’s stated expiry, with occupational charges accepted.

In June 2024, CHPL retook possession following a short notice alleging contractual breaches.

Mahijas sought to quash the eviction directives, recover possession and obtain compensation; CHPL and the Enforcement Directorate disputed the contract’s renewal and alleged serious breaches by Mahijas.

In the connected proceedings, the Court also considered reports concerning the ADC’s authority, performance and progress in returning funds to depositors.

1. Whether Mahijas could obtain relief under Article 226, including restoration of possession, in a disputed commercial-contract matter involving an allegedly expired and determinable management agreement.

2. Whether the ADC had authority under the orders constituting it to permit CHPL to enter management contracts with third parties for Rose Valley hotels.

3. Whether the ADC’s performance and the connected depositor-restitution process required further directions from the Court.

The Court applied the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 226 to a private commercial dispute involving disputed facts and a claim to enforce a determinable contract; it held that such contractual controversies were not suitable for determination in these proceedings.

The respondents relied on Sections 12 and 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, concerning specific performance of determinable contracts, but the Court did not separately analyse those provisions.

The Court construed its orders of 11 May 2015 and 14 December 2017 as conferring on the ADC authority to supervise asset sales and disburse sale proceeds to depositors—not to authorize management contracts with third parties.

No separate precedent was cited as the basis of the Court’s decision.

The Court treated Mahijas’s claims as arising from a private commercial arrangement whose duration, renewal, performance and alleged breaches were contested.

It therefore declined to determine the possession and compensation claims in writ proceedings, leaving Mahijas to pursue any available remedy before the appropriate civil or commercial forum.

Separately, it held that the ADC’s limited mandate did not authorize CHPL to execute third-party management contracts for Rose Valley properties; such contracts were consequently unauthorized and void ab initio.

Considering the SFIO and audit findings, the Court also found prolonged deficiencies in the ADC’s functioning and issued directions intended to accelerate asset sales, depositor payments and the eventual transfer of residual responsibilities.

It held that the ADC lacked authority to permit the management contracts in question and declared such contracts unauthorized and void ab initio.

The ADC was given a final extended period of five months to complete asset sales and disbursement-related work; the Court directed disbursement of the stated ₹550 crore depositor fund against pending claims by 15 November 2026 and monthly compliance reporting, with the first report due on 17 November 2026.

Any residual assets, funds or unresolved matters after 28 February 2027 were to transfer to the Justice S. P. Talukdar Committee, with the ADC to merge with that Committee after the extended period.

The ED was directed to attach further properties identified in the SFIO report and report on 19 November 2026, while the SFIO was directed to complete its forensic audit by 31 December 2026.