- Now get Reliance Jio postpaid free for 2 months with ICICI credit card: Here's how to avail
- India vs England 3rd Test Day 3, Live Cricket Score Streaming, Ind vs Eng Live Score: Virat Kohli departs after 23rd Test ton, India extend lead
- BJP will fall short of majority if elections are held today, reveals survey
The Supreme Court Monday directed the non-institutional directors of Jaypee Associates Ltd (JAL) to appear in court personally and furnish details of their personal assets. The court was upset with the firm for not following its order to deposit Rs 2,000 crore in its Registry to refund home buyers, who had invested in housing projects floated by the builder group.
On September 11, the top court had asked JAL to deposit the amount to protect the interests of home buyers. Though the company subsequently sought permission to deposit Rs 400 crore and requested more time to make the rest of the payment, the court disallowed the request and asked them to show their bona fides by depositing a substantial amount first. The court also rejected their proposal to hive off its Noida highway project to raise the money.
During Monday’s hearing, JAL informed a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra that it had Rs 593 crore with ICICI Bank and was ready with a cheque of Rs 100 crore in a sealed envelope for depositing with the Supreme Court.
The company submitted that it will require an order from the court asking the bank to release the amount it holds, but this was opposed by ICICI counsel saying the Rs 593 crore lying with the bank was meant for the benefit of the lenders of JAL. Also, it said the process of debt reconstruction of the company was going on and it would not be feasible to release the amount.
SC had earlier restrained the managing director and the directors of Jaypee Infratech Ltd, whose parent company is JAL, from travelling abroad without the court’s permission. It is hearing home buyers’ petitions against the insolvency proceedings initiated against the real estate company. The court had earlier stayed the insolvency proceedings.