The Architecture of Fraud: A Comprehensive Account of the Ten Real Estate Companies That Defined India’s Homebuyer Crisis — Their Projects, Their Cases, and the People Who Paid the Price

India’s housing market carries within it one of the most quietly devastating human stories of the past two decades. Millions of families — schoolteachers, defence personnel, government employees, small business owners, and first-generation urban migrants — handed over their life savings, often supplemented by home loans that consumed twenty years of monthly income, to developers who promised them something as fundamental and irreplaceable as a home. What many received in return was a building site that sat unchanged for years, a company that went silent after collecting most of their money, and a legal system that, while improving, could not easily or quickly restore what had been taken.

Before the introduction of transformative laws, the Indian real estate sector operated in a largely unregulated environment. Key challenges included lack of title transparency to buyers coupled with issues such as delayed possession, diversion of funds, and discrepancies in project approvals. The homebuyers had limited legal recourse in case of disputes with developers, and the laws varied across states, leading to inconsistencies and confusion for the homebuyers who were fighting against the tall and mighty. Aside from this, there was a huge influx of black money leading to the entire sector being regarded as dubious for unaccounted transactions and corruption, undermining investor confidence.

Consumer laws kick in once a developer has already hung you out to dry, but they cannot stop the sort of bad behaviour that used to be rampant across the real estate industry. They do not give you a defence against developers that were misusing your money, or selling more flats than they had approvals for, or lying about the progress of their construction.

According to the Indian Banks Association, the size of defaults is as gargantuan as 4.1 lakh units while bank defaults in seven years to 2023 stood at ₹10.2 lakh crore. The Economic Survey for 2024 indicated one in five insolvent companies came from the real estate sector. 

This article examines, company by company and case by case, the ten most controversial real estate developers in India — the builders whose conduct drew the harshest judicial language, the most serious enforcement action, the most documented pattern of homebuyer harm, and the most consequential legal proceedings. It is written as a public interest document, intended for every Indian who has ever been, or might one day be, on the other side of a builder-buyer agreement. Every fact cited here is drawn from court records, enforcement agency disclosures, and published investigative journalism, and each source is identified.

1. Unitech Limited — The Company That Ran Its Fraud From Jail

Of all the cases in India’s real estate history, none combines the scale of harm, the audacity of the alleged conduct, and the institutional betrayal more completely than Unitech Limited. What began as India’s second-largest real estate company — a publicly listed developer with projects across twenty cities and a name associated with premium housing — collapsed into a saga that involved a father and two sons conducting alleged money laundering operations from inside Tihar Jail, a secret underground office discovered by the Enforcement Directorate within the prison, and ₹5,000 crore allegedly siphoned to accounts in Cyprus and the Cayman Islands.

The Projects and Their Completion Record

Unitech launched hundreds of residential projects across India, including developments in Gurugram, Noida, Greater Noida, Chennai, Kolkata, and Mohali. The projects spanned budget housing, mid-range apartments, and luxury villas, and were marketed to buyers across the income spectrum. The completion record is one of the most damaging in Indian real estate history — projects that were promised for delivery in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 remained unfinished or only partially complete years later, with buyers locked into home loans they continued to service against properties that did not exist.

In one of three FIRs, it was alleged that the firm floated a residential project ‘Unitech Verve’ at Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh in 2006, which was booked by complainant Ram Narain Aggarwal, a retired government employee, for an amount of ₹16.77 lakh. The flat was scheduled to be delivered by December 2009, but the complainant had not yet received possession at the time of the court proceeding — a delay of multiple years against a retired government servant who had invested a sum representing many years of his savings.

Another FIR alleged that an 85-year-old woman had, in March 2006, booked a flat in Unitech Ltd’s Greater Noida project ‘Unitech Cascades’ for ₹43 lakh, of which ₹41 lakh was paid by 2008 — and till the date of the court proceedings, possession had not been given. The FIR, lodged in 2016, alleged that the accused had “guilty intention to cheat from the beginning.”

Criminal and Civil Cases

The legal proceedings against Unitech and its promoters represent perhaps the most comprehensive institutional response ever directed at an Indian developer, spanning multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.

Sanjay and Ajay Chandra were arrested in April 2017 by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police, sent to seven days of police custody in connection with three FIRs alleging they cheated homebuyers in Greater Noida projects. A Delhi court remanded the brothers to police custody for custodial interrogation to unravel the cheating cases.

The Enforcement Directorate filed a criminal case under various sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against the Unitech group and its promoters over allegations that the Chandra brothers illegally diverted over ₹2,000 crore of depositors’ funds to Cyprus and the Cayman Islands. ED arrested jailed promoter brothers Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra in a money laundering case of more than ₹2,000 crore. Unitech founder Ramesh Chandra, father of Sanjay and Ajay, and Sanjay’s wife Preeti Chandra were already arrested by ED in October 2021.

The CBI filed a new case against Unitech Limited and its former directors in connection with an alleged fraud in IDBI Bank involving ₹395 crore. The accused are facing another CBI probe pertaining to an alleged fraud in Canara Bank. The company was allegedly enjoying a vendor bill discounting facility of ₹400 crore from IDBI Bank, and a forensic audit by IDBI Bank for the 2015–2018 period concluded that the borrower company had committed fraud, diversion, and misappropriation of funds.

Perhaps the most extraordinary dimension of the Unitech case is what the ED discovered about the conduct of the Chandra brothers during their incarceration.

The ED, investigating money laundering charges against the Chandras and their firm, said in its report that both Sanjay and Ajay had rendered the entire judicial custody meaningless as they had been freely communicating, instructing their officials, and disposing of properties from inside the Tihar Jail in connivance with the prison staff.

The ED alleged that “misappropriated” funds of homebuyers were used by the promoter brothers to “bribe” Tihar jail officials during their confinement. The provisionally attached properties include residential and commercial units, land parcels in Gurugram, Goa, and Chennai, demand drafts, equity shares, and bank balances owned by CIG Realty Fund and Authentic Group.

The Delhi Police Crime Branch registered a case after 32 officials of Tihar Jail number 7 were found to be complicit with Unitech’s imprisoned ex-promoters. The FIR was registered under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court directed suspension of Tihar jail officials, registration of cases against them, and a full-fledged probe into their collusion with Sanjay and Ajay Chandra.

The government ultimately took over Unitech’s board directly. The Central Government took over the board of Unitech Limited and committed to ensuring that all jammed projects see the light of the day and investor confidence remain unshaken.

The Human Cost

The buyers who booked flats in Unitech projects between 2005 and 2012 represent a cross-section of India’s aspirational middle class — retired civil servants, young couples borrowing against their entire future earnings, defence personnel expecting to settle in a stable home on retirement. The forensic audit trail documented by the ED suggests that the money they paid was not merely mismanaged but was systematically diverted — to overseas accounts, to personal asset creation, and, in the most damning allegation, to bribe the very prison officials meant to be supervising the jailed promoters.

2. Amrapali Group — 49,000 Homebuyers, Jailed Directors, and the Court That Had to Become a Builder

The Amrapali Group’s collapse is unique in the history of Indian real estate for one extraordinary reason: the Supreme Court of India, having lost patience with every other available mechanism, effectively took over the company, jailed its directors from inside the courtroom, cancelled its RERA registration, and appointed a state-owned construction company to complete its projects. It is a story in which the judiciary was forced to become, in essence, a developer of last resort — because every other option had been exhausted.

The Projects and Their Scale

Amrapali launched numerous housing projects across Noida and Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh — developments named Amrapali Silicon City, Amrapali Sapphire, Amrapali Zodiac, Amrapali Centurian Park, Amrapali La Residentia, Amrapali Dream Valley, and several others. The marketing was sophisticated and celebrity-driven; MS Dhoni served as brand ambassador, and former IIT graduate Anil Kumar Sharma presented the company as a credentialed, reliable developer.

The Supreme Court in its 270-page verdict laid down the entire plan through which Amrapali trapped innocent customers — generating money and investing it not to complete projects, but to increase the directors’ “own personal assets”. The court found that the group had not prepared any accounts from 2015 to 2018, and that all the money earned during that period was “diverted”.

The court noted that Amrapali’s directors diverted the money by creating “dummy companies, realising professional fees, creating bogus bills, selling flats at undervalue price, payment of excessive brokerage.” The money obtained from banks was diverted to create “personal assets of directors, creation of assets in closely held companies by the directors along with their partners and relatives, for personal expenses of directors, to give advances without carrying interest for several years.”

The forensic auditors informed the court that this was a “serious kind of fraud played upon the buyers in active connivance with the officials of the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities and that of the banks”, noting that the authorities “very well knew” that there were defaults, but even then allotted further land to the Amrapali Group “without insisting on payment of dues.” The Supreme Court called this Amrapali fraud a “clear breach of public trust” and found that the officials of the authorities “acted clearly in collusion with the builders and overlooked the interest of the authorities and homebuyers.”

Criminal Cases and Arrests

The Supreme Court allowed the Delhi Police to arrest Amrapali promoter Anil Sharma and two other directors Shiv Priya and Ajay Kumar from inside the court hall in connection with an economic offences complaint registered against them. The top court also ordered attachment of personal properties of the CMD and directors.

The CBI filed an FIR against Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt Ltd and its director Anil Sharma among others for allegedly cheating Bank of Maharashtra and Andhra Bank of over ₹230 crore. The banks had sanctioned credit facilities to develop a housing building at Tech Zone IV in Greater Noida. The company failed to maintain financial discipline, following which the account was declared a non-performing asset on March 31, 2017.

The bail plea of former CMD Anil Sharma was rejected by the Supreme Court with the bench stating it found “no sympathy” for someone who had cheated thousands of homebuyers. The bench said that this case is not a case of simple cheating as it portrays the plight of thousands of homebuyers and noted that the offence ran “very deep.”

Seven FIRs were filed by Amrapali homebuyers alleging that MS Dhoni’s role as brand ambassador had lured them into investing. Buyers alleged that Amrapali launched projects without any approval from the concerned authorities in Noida and that the builder-buyer agreement was unilateral and biased. “With the impression of MS Dhoni as the legend of India cricket and Anil K Sharma as a professional builder with a degree from IIT, buyers signed the agreement believing clauses of agreement as to the worst-case scenario,” one FIR stated.

The Continuing Limbo

Over 42,000 homebuyers in Noida and Greater Noida have been left in the lurch, struggling for years to get possession of the homes they paid for in various projects of the Amrapali Group. In 2018, the Supreme Court appointed NBCC to complete the stalled projects. However, even after this intervention, thousands of buyers are still waiting for their promised flats, with no end to their ordeal in sight.

One buyer named Nitin Srivastava, affected under the Amrapali Adarsh Awas Yojana, described the devastation with a clarity that no legal citation can match: “The builder may be out of his legal entanglements in a few years, but people like us have lost our entire life savings.” He highlighted how the builder launched unauthorised towers from H2 to W2 without securing government approval.

Another buyer described how by December 2023 — more than seven years after booking — he had received only ₹50 lakh of the ₹1.03 crore the RERA recovery certificate had directed him to receive, despite filing numerous complaints and following up with the District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate, and despite an Allahabad High Court order directing full recovery within 60 days. “I had to keep visiting courts and meeting officials to get even this much. Most other buyers haven’t received a single penny and continue to move from pillar to post. It’s a harrowing ordeal that shows no signs of resolution,” he stated.

3. Jaypee Infratech Limited — Seven Years of Insolvency, 30,000 Buyers, and Construction Still Stalled

The Jaypee Infratech story is in some ways the most institutionally complex in Indian real estate, because it passed through every available dispute resolution mechanism — consumer courts, RERA, the Supreme Court, the IBC process, NCLT, NCLAT — and at each stage managed to extend the suffering of its homebuyers rather than resolve it.

The Projects and the Promise

Jaypee Infratech Limited, a subsidiary of the Jaiprakash Associates conglomerate, developed massive residential townships along the Yamuna Expressway in Uttar Pradesh — most prominently the Wish Town township in Noida, which included projects named Kosmos, Klassic, Kensington Boulevard, Kasa Isles, Krescent Homes, and Pebble Court, among others. When Jaypee Infratech Limited went for a Company Insolvency Resolution Process on August 9, 2017, approximately 30,000 homebuyers hoped to realise their dream of owning a flat.

A homebuyer who booked a flat in ‘KOSMOS society’ in the year 2009 had already paid almost the entire consideration amount and also secured a housing loan from HDFC Bank and was waiting for possession for more than 12 years when JIL went into insolvency proceedings. This single case, representative of tens of thousands like it, encapsulates what the Jaypee story meant in human terms: twelve years of EMI payments on a home loan for a home that did not exist, while simultaneously paying rent for actual accommodation.

The Insolvency Labyrinth

According to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, a CIRP process should ideally be completed within 330 days. Despite the Supreme Court’s intervention since the CIRP process began, buyers have yet to get any respite. The resolution process entered its sixth year on August 9, 2022. The Supreme Court in November 2019 asked the IRP to complete the CIRP process in 90 days.

Two companies were in the fray — NBCC and Suraksha. The Committee of Creditors voted for NBCC. NBCC’s plan was submitted to NCLT, which approved it with modifications. NBCC challenged those modifications in the Supreme Court, which on March 24, 2021 rejected the NBCC plan and asked the IRP to start the CIRP process all over again.

Over 22,000 homebuyers associated with JIL are once again left disillusioned, as construction across multiple residential projects remains at a near standstill — despite formal approval of Suraksha Realty’s resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal over a year ago on March 7, 2023. Although the effective date of implementation was set as May 24, 2024, not a single project has resumed meaningful construction.

The JIL Real Estate Allottees Welfare Society, representing affected buyers, documented a disturbing pattern even under the new resolution framework: several JIL projects are still listed in abeyance on the UPRERA portal well beyond the one-year compliance window required by law; Suraksha Realty continues to cite pending Supreme Court proceedings as a reason for delay; administrative and transfer charges have been increased arbitrarily, burdening buyers already grappling with uncertainty; despite several buyers clearing their principal dues, the company is allegedly recovering interest-on-interest dating back to the insolvency period; and unsolicited emails are being sent promoting distressed resale without transparency on timelines or fair pricing.

The Financial Scale

The total construction cost for pending projects is estimated at ₹5,500 crore. Of this, ₹2,500 crore is earmarked for FY 2025-26. Lenders have claimed ₹9,783 crore in dues. The NCLAT directed Suraksha to pay an additional ₹1,334 crore to the Yamuna Expressway Authority as farmer compensation, a matter now pending in the Supreme Court.

Completing the pending work requires an estimated investment of ₹6,500–7,000 crore to finish nearly 160 residential towers across multiple projects. Approximately 20,000 homebuyers have been impacted by these delays.

The promoter and former Managing Director Manoj Gaur filed a Company Appeal before the NCLAT challenging the approved resolution plan, in a continuing attempt by the former management to re-enter a process from which it had been displaced.

4. BPTP Limited — An IPO Ambition Built on a Foundation of Delayed Projects, Supreme Court Orders, and an Active ED Investigation

BPTP Limited — Business Park Town Planners — represents a particular category of controversial developer: a company that continues to launch new premium projects while the enforcement actions, court orders, and homebuyer grievances relating to its earlier projects accumulate without resolution. Its decision to pursue an IPO in 2025–2026, in the midst of an active Enforcement Directorate investigation, places it in uniquely significant territory from a public interest perspective.

The Projects and Their Delays

BPTP’s project portfolio spans Gurugram and Faridabad, including the Spacio development in Sector 37D (launched approximately 2010, promised possession 2014, actual possession mid-2021), the Amstoria township in Sector 102 Gurugram (confirmed by the NCDRC to have failed delivery obligations by September 2014), the Park 81 villas in Faridabad (promised July 2014, not offered until June 2023), the Parklands projects in Sectors 77–85 Faridabad, and multiple other schemes including Park Elite Premium, Park Arena, Discovery Park, and Princess Park.

In the case of Raghbir Singh, a buyer in the Amstoria project who paid ₹78,64,819 — approximately 92% of the total consideration — and received nothing by the agreed September 2014 deadline, the NCDRC on November 11, 2021 held that BPTP had committed deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice, found its force majeure defence entirely unsubstantiated, rejected the arbitration clause defence, and ordered a full refund with 9% annual interest plus costs of ₹50,000.

The NCDRC specifically noted the asymmetry in BPTP’s own contract: it charged buyers 18% per annum for late payments while offering only ₹10–30 per square foot per month in compensation for its own delays — a difference so extreme it was characterised as an unfair trade practice. (Source: Raghbir Singh v. M/s. BPTP Limited, NCDRC, Consumer Case No. 835 of 2020, November 11, 2021, via LegitQuest.)

In the Parklands matter, the Supreme Court in September 2025 directed BPTP to refund a buyer who had paid ₹43.13 lakh and waited twelve years, awarding 18% annual interest — matching BPTP’s own penalty rate for buyer defaults. In the Terra Flat Buyers Association case, the Supreme Court on November 28, 2024 directed full refund to remaining complainants at 9% annual interest, confirming NCDRC findings, and explicitly ordered that no TDS be deducted from the interest on the ground that it represented compensation for mental agony and harassment. (Source: M/S BPTP Limited & Ors. v. Terra Flat Buyers Association, Supreme Court, Civil Appeal Nos. 822-823 of 2024, November 28, 2024.)

The Enforcement Directorate Investigation

In August 2025, the ED conducted raids on BPTP’s offices and directors’ residences across NCR under FEMA, alleging that BPTP received over ₹500 crore of FDI between 2007–08 through Mauritius entities structured with illegal put option and swap clauses that violated FEMA’s FDI norms. The ED’s communications explicitly noted it had uncovered “multiple FIRs” registered against BPTP and its directors across Delhi-NCR police stations for “non-completion of various projects for a long period of time and diversion of funds.” (Source: ED press release, August 2025, as reported by PTI.)

The IPO Question

Against this backdrop — active ED investigation, multiple Supreme Court orders, dozens of RERA complaints, and thousands of buyers still waiting — BPTP has proceeded with IPO planning, appointing merchant bankers and projecting revenues of ₹5,500 crore for FY2025-26. The public interest concern is direct and urgent: retail investors evaluating this IPO deserve a comprehensive disclosure of these matters, not a prospectus oriented primarily around land bank statistics and revenue projections that are not situated within the full legal and enforcement context.

5. Parsvnath Developers — A BSE-Listed Company With a Nationwide Trail of Stalled Projects

Parsvnath Developers, once listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange as a significant pan-India developer, accumulated one of the broadest geographic footprints of delayed and stalled projects in Indian real estate — with controversies spanning Delhi, NCR, Punjab, Rajasthan, and multiple other states.

Parsvnath launched projects under names including Parsvnath Exotica, Parsvnath Prestige, Parsvnath City, Parsvnath Green Ville, Parsvnath Royale, Parsvnath La Tropicana, and others. The pattern across these projects was strikingly consistent: launch, heavy booking, partial collection of funds, construction slowing and eventually stopping, buyers left with home loans and no homes, followed by years of litigation across consumer forums, RERA authorities, and civil courts.

Parsvnath’s RERA compliance record shows numerous projects registered with extended completion deadlines that have themselves been missed. The NCDRC and various state consumer commissions have issued multiple orders against Parsvnath directing refunds with interest to buyers across projects in multiple cities. The company has faced contempt proceedings in several jurisdictions for non-compliance with consumer forum orders.

Parsvnath promoter Pradeep Jain has faced legal proceedings in connection with some of the company’s defaults, and multiple FIRs have been filed in various jurisdictions by aggrieved homebuyers. The company’s financial condition — reflected in its stock market performance and its RERA compliance filings — tells the story of a developer that expanded aggressively, collected funds, and then found itself unable to complete what it had started.

6. Supertech Limited — 40,000 Buyers, Illegal Construction, and the Dramatic Court-Ordered Demolition

Supertech Limited achieved a kind of infamy that transcends ordinary real estate controversy: it built towers that the Supreme Court of India ordered demolished, on the grounds that they had been constructed illegally. The Emerald Court project in Noida, where two 40-storey towers — Apex and Ceyane — were brought down in August 2022 following years of litigation, became one of the most visible symbols of regulatory failure and developer audacity in Indian real estate history.

The demolition itself represented the end of a long legal journey. Buyers in Supertech’s Emerald Court had approached the Allahabad High Court alleging that the two towers had been constructed without proper approvals and in violation of building bye-laws. The High Court ordered demolition in 2014. Supertech appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately confirmed the demolition order.

Beyond Emerald Court, Supertech had dozens of other projects across NCR and UP — including Supertech Capetown, Supertech Romano, Supertech Hill Town, Supertech Eco Village, and many others — where delivery timelines were significantly missed and buyers filed complaints across RERA and consumer courts. HRERA cases against Supertech entities appear across multiple years in the Haryana RERA annual digest, documenting individual buyer complaints about delayed possession and refund claims.

Supertech’s founder R K Arora was arrested by the ED in 2023 in connection with a money laundering investigation related to the diversion of homebuyer funds. The company also faces insolvency proceedings under the IBC, with multiple petitions filed by financial creditors. The combination of criminal action against the founder, ongoing insolvency proceedings, and tens of thousands of buyers still awaiting possession places Supertech among the most consequentially troubled names in Indian real estate.

7. Omaxe Limited — Consumer Cases Across Multiple States and the Persistent Gap Between Promises and Delivery

Omaxe Limited, founded by Rohtas Goel, expanded aggressively across Tier-2 and Tier-3 Indian cities — a strategy that differentiated it from NCR-focused developers but also spread its delivery obligations across a wider and harder-to-manage geography.

Omaxe projects span cities including Lucknow, Faridabad, New Chandigarh, Patiala, Ludhiana, Indore, Bhopal, and others, marketed under names including Omaxe City, Omaxe Heights, Omaxe The Forest Spa, Omaxe New Chandigarh, Omaxe Cassia, and others. Across these projects, buyer complaints about delivery delays, quality of construction, unilateral modification of project plans, and demands for additional charges have been documented in consumer forums and RERA authorities across multiple states.

The NCDRC and various state consumer commissions have issued orders against Omaxe in numerous cases directing refund with interest. RERA authorities in Punjab, UP, and other states have recorded complaints and issued orders. The company has also faced proceedings in connection with its listed entity status and financial disclosures.

Rohtas Goel has faced legal proceedings in connection with company affairs, and the company’s stock market performance reflects the financial strain of managing a large portfolio of partially completed or delayed projects against accumulating legal liabilities.

8. Ireo Private Limited — ₹2,500 Crore ED Probe and the NRI Investor Scandal

Ireo Private Limited, a Gurugram-based developer that positioned itself as a premium brand, became the subject of one of the most significant enforcement actions against a real estate company in recent years when the ED opened a FEMA and PMLA investigation into its foreign funding structures.

Ireo launched high-end residential projects in Gurugram, including Ireo The Grand Arch, Ireo Victory Valley, Ireo Uptown, Ireo Skyon, and Ireo Corridors, alongside commercial developments. The projects were marketed as premium developments with international-standard specifications, priced accordingly, and sold heavily to NRI buyers who were investing from overseas on the basis of promotional materials.

The ED’s investigation found alleged violations in how Ireo raised and deployed funds from foreign investors — with allegations that money raised from NRI and foreign investors was not used for the purposes for which it was collected, but was diverted through a network of entities. The probe involved attachments of property and questioning of the company’s leadership.

Lalit Goyal, the founder of Ireo, became the subject of ED investigation and faced serious questions about the flow of funds through the Ireo structure. Multiple buyer associations representing purchasers in different Ireo projects have been in litigation, and HRERA has recorded numerous complaints against Ireo entities. The combination of NRI investors who feel defrauded, an active enforcement investigation, and large numbers of domestic buyers with unresolved possession claims makes Ireo one of the most consequentially troubled premium developers in India.

9. Today Homes and Infrastructure — RERA, NCR Buyers, and the Pattern of Unmet Obligations

Today Homes and Infrastructure, a Haryana-based developer, accumulated a significant RERA compliance record in Gurugram and other NCR areas, with multiple projects registered under RERA showing extended delays and ongoing buyer complaints.

Today Homes launched projects across Gurugram and other Haryana locations, including developments marketed as mid-premium residential offerings. The RERA compliance filings for these projects show patterns familiar across the controversial developer category: launch dates in the 2009–2014 range, promised completion timelines that were not met, and buyers who moved through HRERA’s complaint process seeking possession or refund with interest.

In the case of Ajay Nagpal v. Today Homes and Infrastructure Private Limited, the Delhi High Court was asked whether after the commencement of RERA, homebuyers can proceed with their application under Consumer Protection Act. The High Court held that the remedies under RERA and CPA are concurrent, rejecting the petition. This case established an important precedent that buyers could pursue both RERA and consumer court remedies simultaneously — a ruling that emerged directly from Today Homes’ attempt to limit buyer recourse.

10. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure — A Legacy Name With a Legacy Problem

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure, one of India’s oldest and most historically significant real estate developers, carries a legacy that combines genuine landmark contributions to urban development with one of the most extensive records of homebuyer complaints and RERA proceedings of any developer still operating.

HRERA in 2025 directed M/s Ansal Townships Infrastructure Private Limited to hand over possession within two months after obtaining the occupancy certificate and pay interest to the homebuyer for delay in handing over possession. As per the agreement signed by the homebuyer in May 2012, the builder was supposed to hand over possession of the flat by November 2017 — making the delay, at the time of the HRERA order, more than seven years.

Ansal’s project portfolio spans multiple decades and multiple cities — it is genuinely one of the largest land banks of any developer in India, with projects in Delhi, Lucknow, Agra, Meerut, Jodhpur, Karnal, and numerous other cities. The breadth of this portfolio, while commercially significant, also means that the scale of homebuyer grievances is proportionally extensive, with RERA authorities across multiple states recording complaints against various Ansal entities.

The company’s founding family faces legal proceedings in multiple jurisdictions, and the gap between the number of projects launched and the number completed to the satisfaction of buyers represents one of the most persistent accountability challenges in the Indian real estate sector.

The Systemic Picture: What These Ten Cases Tell Us Together

Examining these ten companies not in isolation but as a collective phenomenon reveals structural patterns that go beyond individual misconduct and point to systemic failures of regulation, incentive design, and enforcement.

Real estate projects in India have grown at a steady pace indicating strong growth in the sector, which has necessitated legislations and mechanisms for protecting the rights of the allottees/homebuyers of such projects. The enactment of RERA was one of the important pieces of legislation in this regard. RERA mandates the registration of real estate projects and agents, ensuring that developers adhere to project timelines and specifications, and provides for a dedicated platform for aggrieved buyers to address grievances. It mandates developers to deposit 70% of funds collected from buyers into a dedicated escrow account to ensure timely completion.

Yet the evidence from these ten cases suggests that even post-RERA, the problems have not been fully resolved. RERA which imposed strict regulations saw more cases of fraud and insolvency. Despite the legal structure, scammed buyers are likely to face a loss despite parting with their life savings or a bank loan. The availability of a legal structure has not simplified the ground reality for hapless buyers.

When RERA came in, it expanded the protections a homebuyer had, but it didn’t solve everything. Developers frequently just run out of money. They go bust, entire projects stall, and hundreds of homebuyers are suddenly left without a home despite huge booking fees. In the bankruptcy proceedings that follow, banks and other lenders would call the shots and get the first right over a developer’s money. Homebuyers’ interests would be secondary.

Conclusion: The Architecture of Accountability

What the stories in this investigation share is not simply that developers were dishonest, though in several cases the evidence suggests precisely that. What they share is a structural environment that for many years made dishonesty, or at minimum irresponsibility, more financially rational than completing projects. An environment where a developer could collect 80–90% of a project’s revenue from buyers before completing 20% of the work, then use that money for other purposes while the buyers had limited and slow recourse, created a systematic incentive toward the pattern of conduct documented here.

The legal reforms of the past decade — RERA, the amendment recognising homebuyers as financial creditors under IBC, the Supreme Court’s increasingly direct intervention in real estate fraud cases, the ED’s use of PMLA proceedings against developer promoters — have significantly altered that incentive structure. But as the continued suffering of Jaypee’s 22,000 buyers in 2025, the limbo of thousands of Amrapali buyers still awaiting full delivery, and the ongoing complaints against developers like BPTP all demonstrate, structural reform and enforcement take time to fully replace a culture of impunity that was decades in the making.

The most important single conclusion from this investigation is the one that the Supreme Court arrived at years ago and that continues to define the moral clarity that the legal system brings to these cases: a homebuyer is not a sophisticated financial investor who understood and accepted the risks of a speculative venture. A homebuyer is a person who saved money over years, often borrowed the rest from a bank, and trusted a developer with the most important financial transaction of their life.

Treating that trust as a resource to be extracted rather than an obligation to be honoured is not a business strategy that Indian law, Indian courts, or Indian public opinion should tolerate — and the documented records of these ten companies exist as evidence that such tolerance has already cost hundreds of thousands of Indian families far more than any of them could have anticipated on the day they signed their booking form.