Supreme Court runs Unitech board as ED alleges fund diversion

What the Record Shows

The Unitech matter is being worked out under the supervision of the Supreme Court of India, which stepped in over the affairs of Unitech Ltd after thousands of homebuyers were left without possession. Per the Court's order dated 18 December 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10856 of 2016 (Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd), the bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah directed that the Union of India "must step in forthwith by suspending the management of Unitech Limited and appoint independent Directors to take over". A government-nominated board was subsequently installed to complete the stalled projects and to work out repayment to homebuyers and fixed-deposit holders.

Running alongside the civil supervision is a criminal and money-laundering investigation. Per the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 14 June 2023 in Preeti Chandra v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Enforcement Directorate alleges that homebuyer and investor money was siphoned from Unitech, with the agency's figures placed before the Court including roughly Rs 7,000 crore diverted from the company, of which about Rs 1,742 crore was allegedly routed abroad, and Rs 380.08 crore identified by the ED as proceeds of crime for the years 2007-08 to 2011-12.

No court has convicted any of the accused. The former promoters, Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, were arrested in 2017 and face trial, and the founder, Ramesh Chandra, was granted bail in the money-laundering case. The ED allegations are the agency's case as placed before the courts, not judicial findings.

How It Worked

The mechanism, as the enforcement agencies describe it, turned on the diversion of money that homebuyers had paid for flats in Unitech's Gurugram and wider National Capital Region projects. Per the record before the Delhi High Court, the ED alleges that advances and fixed deposits collected for specific projects were applied away from construction, leaving buyers without possession for more than a decade, and that funds were layered through group and offshore entities. The judgment records the ED's allegation of an offshore structure, described as the Trikar Group, said to have managed roughly Rs 401.07 crore through entities in the Cayman Islands, Singapore and Mauritius between 2015 and 2018.

The procedural history is unusually dense. Per the Delhi High Court judgment, between 2006 and 2022 the Delhi Police and the CBI registered 74 FIRs against the Unitech promoters on complaints by homebuyers, and the ED built its money-laundering case on those predicate offences. The agency invoked Sections 3, 4 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alongside Indian Penal Code provisions including Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ED also recorded a provisional attachment order dated 25 August 2022 over three Dubai properties it alleges were not previously disclosed.

A separate strand concerns conduct inside prison. Per the record, an FIR was registered after a Commissioner of Police inquiry in 2021 into allegations that homebuyers' money was used to influence Tihar jail officials, following which the Supreme Court ordered the Chandra brothers moved from Tihar to prisons in Mumbai. Each of these steps is an allegation or an investigation-stage action; none is a finding of guilt, and the matters are yet to be tested at trial.

Who Lost Money

The people at the centre of the matter are Unitech's homebuyers and fixed-deposit holders. Per the Supreme Court's 2019 order, approximately 12,000 homebuyers were identified as affected and requiring protection of their interests; later estimates in the proceedings put the number of buyers awaiting possession higher still, alongside the holders of Unitech's fixed deposits. The direct harm is measured by the years of stalled construction and the money paid for flats that were not delivered.

The remedy here, as with other supervised real-estate collapses, is largely completion rather than a cash refund. The government-appointed board has been running a Revised Payment Plan to restart and finish construction, and has provided for refunds of outstanding principal to fixed-deposit holders. Where buyers had already paid a large share of their dues, the relief has focused on getting the flats built and handed over, funded through the board's plan and the assets available to it.

Recovery therefore comes slowly and in kind for most buyers, and the position differs from one project and one buyer to the next. The ED's attachments and the criminal case run on their own track, and any money that flows from them to depositors depends on the outcome of proceedings that have not yet reached trial.

Where It Stands Now

As of today the matter is live and court-monitored, with no criminal conviction recorded. The Supreme Court continues to supervise the government-appointed board's completion effort, and in orders through January 2025 the Court has granted the Unitech projects relief to keep construction moving, including on the question of fresh RERA registration for projects the board is completing. The board's Revised Payment Plan remains the operative framework for finishing the towers and repaying buyers and deposit-holders.

On the criminal side, per the Delhi High Court judgment of 14 June 2023, charges had not been framed and the trial had not commenced, with the investigation described as ongoing and many witnesses yet to be examined; Preeti Chandra, arrested on 4 October 2021, was granted bail after more than 20 months in custody, on conditions. Sanjay and Ajay Chandra face trial, and Ramesh Chandra is on bail.

A chargesheet, a provisional attachment or an FIR contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The figures cited by the ED are the agency's allegations as placed before the courts, and this report attributes them accordingly.

What It Means

The Unitech matter shows both the reach and the limits of judicial supervision when a large developer collapses. The Supreme Court's decision to suspend the existing management and install an independent board is one of the strongest interventions available, and it has kept the completion effort alive. But even that route delivers homes over years, not months, and it leans on a Revised Payment Plan that often asks buyers to keep paying their dues to fund the very flats they are owed.

For anyone buying an under-construction property, the practical checks are the same ones this saga underlines: confirm that the project and promoter are registered with the state RERA authority and that the registration is current, insist that instalments go into the project's designated RERA account rather than a general corporate account, and match payments to construction milestones rather than to time. A buyer can model the true carrying cost of a delayed purchase, including the home-loan interest paid while a project stalls, with a real-estate return calculator.

Our wider enforcement archive tracks how these supervised real-estate and PMLA matters actually resolve, and Unitech remains a leading example of the distance between an allegation of diversion and the slow, court-run work of making buyers whole.

FAQ

Are the Unitech promoters guilty?

No court has convicted them. The ED's figures, the CBI FIRs and the provisional attachments contain allegations, not findings of guilt. Sanjay and Ajay Chandra face trial and Ramesh Chandra is on bail; per the Delhi High Court, charges had not been framed and the trial had not commenced as of June 2023. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

What does the ED allege was misappropriated?

Per the record before the Delhi High Court, the ED alleges roughly Rs 7,000 crore was siphoned from Unitech, with about Rs 1,742 crore allegedly routed abroad and Rs 380.08 crore identified as proceeds of crime for 2007-08 to 2011-12, and it alleges an offshore structure moved a further sum through overseas entities. These are the agency's allegations, not judicial findings.

What did the Supreme Court do about Unitech's management?

Per its order of 18 December 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10856 of 2016, the Court directed the Union of India to suspend Unitech's management and appoint independent directors, following which a government-nominated board was installed to complete the projects and repay homebuyers and fixed-deposit holders.

Have the homebuyers got their flats?

Recovery here is mainly completion rather than a cash refund. The government-appointed board runs a Revised Payment Plan to restart and finish construction and has provided for refunds of outstanding principal to fixed-deposit holders. Delivery is happening project by project and depends on the funds and assets available to the board.

What money did the ED attach?

Per the Delhi High Court judgment, the ED recorded a provisional attachment order dated 25 August 2022 over three Dubai properties it alleges were undisclosed, among other steps in its money-laundering investigation. A provisional attachment is an investigation-stage step requiring confirmation, not a conviction.

Where can I read the official record?

The Supreme Court's order suspending the management and the Delhi High Court's bail judgment setting out the ED's case are reproduced on Indian Kanoon and are linked below.

This report is based on the Supreme Court order dated 18 December 2019 in Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd and the Delhi High Court judgment dated 14 June 2023 in Preeti Chandra v. Directorate of Enforcement, reviewed on 1 August 2026.