- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
The Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, erstwhile promoters of real estate company Unitech, who were arrested in 2017 for cheating homebuyers. The top court also directed Sanjay Chandra to surrender immediately.A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah cancelled the interim bail granted to Sanjay Chandra and said that he and his brother...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, erstwhile promoters of real estate company Unitech, who were arrested in 2017 for cheating homebuyers. The top court also directed Sanjay Chandra to surrender immediately.
A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah cancelled the interim bail granted to Sanjay Chandra and said that he and his brother had failed to deposit Rs. 750 crore as directed by the three-judge bench in October 2017. The Supreme Court also declined to give two weeks’ time to surrender, as contended by Chandra’s counsel.
The Top Court also asked the Delhi Police to investigate all aspects of illegalities including siphoning of funds by the Chandras, as pointed out by forensic auditor Grant Thornton. The Court also asked the Additional Solicitor General, representing the Centre, to file a separate comprehensive affidavit giving details of the steps being taken by the investigative agencies’ vis-a-vis the forensic report.
In July, the Apex Court granted interim bail to promoter and former managing director of Unitech Ltd Sanjay Chandra, who has been behind bars for close to three years.
A bench headed by Justice Chandrachud allowed Chandra to be released for a period of one month, as both his parents were not keeping well and are hospitalised. The Court was informed that Chandra’s father, who is 78, was infected with Covid-19, and is in the ICU. The bench, while allowing the interim bail plea of Chandra, asked him to withdraw the second plea for regular bail. It declined to give bail to Chandra’s younger brother, who is also in jail in the case involving siphoning of money paid by homebuyers.
In 2017, both Chandra and his brother, Ajay, were sent to jail in a cheating case registered against them by investors in the Anthea and Wild Flower Country projects. In 2015, a case was registered based on the complaint of two Delhi residents, who alleged Unitech convinced them to book a flat at Wild Flower Country in Gurgaon for Rs. 57.34 Lakh in August 2011. On October 30, 2017, the Top Court had ordered that Sanjay Chandra would get bail only after the real estate group deposited Rs. 750 crore with the registry.