Delhi High Court appoints ex-CJI-led panel to verify claims of 1,650 Greenopolis homebuyers amid alleged fund siphoning

The Greenopolis residential project was developed under an arrangement between Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (“3C Shelters”) and Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (“Orris”). Homebuyers paid substantial sums to both entities, but the project was abandoned, and allegations arose that funds had been siphoned off.

3C Shelters was admitted to the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”), while the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) and attached properties belonging to former promoters and other persons/entities; the attached properties were not assets of 3C Shelters.

Greenopolis Welfare Confederation (“GWC”) applied to the PMLA Special Court under Section 8(8), seeking intervention and directions concerning attached assets.

The Special Court’s order dated 27 November 2025 directed restoration of assets “as per rules,” required the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) to abide by an undertaking, and permitted disposal of the properties for restitution.

ED and Greenopolis Welfare Association (“GWA”) challenged that order. GWC separately sought enforcement of the IRP’s undertaking and related orders by writ petition. Other parties claiming ownership of attached properties also opposed steps affecting those properties.

1. Whether the Special Court’s order dated 27 November 2025 directing restoration of attached properties and assigning a role to the IRP was legally sustainable under the PMLA and the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 (“PML Rules”).

2. Whether GWC, as an association, could maintain an application for restoration under Section 8(8) of the PMLA without itself establishing the statutory requirements applicable to a claimant.

3. Whether, and for what limited purpose, a monitoring committee should be appointed to address the competing homebuyer claims and assist in the process concerning assets attached by ED.

Section 8(5) of the PMLA provides for confiscation of property upon conclusion of trial where the Special Court finds that money-laundering has been committed; Section 8(8) permits restoration to a claimant with a legitimate interest who has suffered quantifiable loss, acted in good faith, taken reasonable precautions, and is not involved in the offence.

The second proviso to Section 8(8), read with Rule 3A of the PML Rules, permits restoration of attached property during trial, but Rule 3A requires that charges have been framed, claims be notified and established, and the property owner be given an opportunity to be heard; it also provides for auction and pro-rata distribution where appropriate.

In Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 161, the Supreme Court held that an application under the second proviso to Section 8(8) is subject to Rules 2(b) and 3A, and that restoration during trial requires charges to have been framed; it also recognised an embargo on restoration where the relevant attachment order remains under challenge before a higher forum.

The IBBI circular relied on by the IRP could not override either the PMLA or the IBC, and its stated purpose concerning attached assets of a corporate debtor did not apply to assets that were not assets of 3C Shelters.

The Court also invoked its Article 226 jurisdiction to appoint a monitoring committee, while expressly reserving the broader question of the relationship between that jurisdiction and Rule 3A.

GWC was an association, not itself a homebuyer or claimant with a legitimate interest in the attached properties, and the Special Court had no material to find that GWC had invested in the project or satisfied the statutory claimant criteria. The Special Court’s inconsistent treatment of GWC and GWA further underscored the error in allowing GWC’s application.

The Special Court also acted before charges had been framed, contrary to Rule 3A, and improperly relied on the IRP’s undertaking and the IBBI circular to direct restoration and disposal. The attached properties were not assets of 3C Shelters, so the IRP had no statutory role over them under the CIRP or the PMLA process.

The Supreme Court’s order recording the undertaking in an individual homebuyer’s appeal did not make it an undertaking in rem binding on all project homebuyers.

Given the number of competing claims, the Court considered a monitoring committee appropriate to verify homebuyers and collate information on attached assets, but deferred any directions for liquidation or restoration pending a fuller picture of claims, ownership, attachment status, and valuation.

It appointed a monitoring committee chaired by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, with two former Delhi judicial officers, to verify genuine homebuyers, record the status and claimed ownership of attached assets, and obtain valuations.

The committee was not authorised at this stage to liquidate or otherwise deal with the attached assets, and the IRP was given no role before it; the committee’s work would not affect rights in the CIRP.

ED was directed to transfer specified funds to the committee’s account and to seek expeditious disposal of pending challenges to attachment orders.

The two revision petitions were disposed of in those terms, while the writ petition was re-notified.