Moratorium protection extends to joint ventures and project entities expressly included in a court-sanctioned resolution framework.

The Appellant is a Joint Venture (JV) company of the Unitech Group, developing residential and commercial projects in Bhopal.

Due to national-level delays, the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SC) took over Unitech’s management, appointed a new Board, and imposed a moratorium on legal proceedings against "Unitech Group" entities.

Respondents No. 1 and 2, individual homebuyers, obtained refund orders and recovery certificates from MPRERA against the Appellant.

They subsequently filed writ petitions (W.P. No. 20694/2021 and W.P. No. 13136/2023) seeking execution of these certificates without impleading the Appellant.

The Writ Court directed execution of the recoveries. The Appellant filed review petitions, which were dismissed by the Learned Single Judge on the grounds that Section 2.2.4 of the Resolution Framework gave operational control to the JV partner, excluding the Appellant from the SC's moratorium.

1. Whether a Joint Venture entity, specifically named in the Resolution Framework, falls under the protection of the moratorium and management control established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the Unitech Group.

2. Whether the orders passed in the underlying writ petitions were vitiated by the non-joinder of the developer (the Appellant) and the suppression of facts regarding the moratorium.

The court primarily applied the directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 10856/2016), which clarified that the moratorium and management control by the new Board applies to all "group entities," including affiliates and subsidiaries.

It further applied the "Resolution Framework of Unitech Group," specifically Heading 1.7, which defines "Unitech Group" to include joint ventures and project entities.

Additionally, the court relied on the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to the review of orders obtained through suppression of material facts or in the absence of a necessary party.

The Court reasoned that the Learned Single Judge erred by interpreting Paragraph 2.2.4 of the Resolution Framework (which allocates day-to-day operational control) as a limitation on the moratorium's scope.

The Division Bench emphasized that the Supreme Court’s order dated 24.03.2021 explicitly extended the moratorium to all "affiliates" and "group entities," and Heading 1.7 of the Framework expressly includes "joint ventures".

Consequently, the internal administrative allocation of operational control does not strip an entity of the protective umbrella granted by the Apex Court.

Furthermore, the Court found the underlying writ orders unsustainable because the Appellant—the party whose assets were to be attached—was never impleaded, constituting a violation of natural justice.

Regarding Respondent No. 2, the Court found active suppression of the fact that MPRERA had already stayed recovery due to the moratorium.

The Court held that the Appellant is entitled to moratorium protection as a Joint Venture of the Unitech Group.

The Court set aside the execution directions in W.P. No. 20694/2021 and W.P. No. 13136/2023, restored the petitions, and directed the Respondents to implead the Appellant within four weeks.

The Writ Court was directed to decide the matters afresh within four months, considering the Resolution Framework and the Supreme Court’s ongoing supervision. No costs were awarded.