The directors of Ansal Properties have been summoned by the Delhi High Court.

The directors of real estate firm Ansal Properties & Infrastructure have been summoned by the Delhi High Court to describe the “concealment of facts” from the court and try to “frustrate” its orders. The directors have been directed to remain personally present in the court on January 23.

“Prima facie,” the developer of real estate and a finance company “not only concealed material information and misled this court, but they also acted in such a way as to circumvent/frustrate the order(s) did pass by this court,” the high court stated in an order issued this week.

Ansal Properties’ and RSD Finance’s counsel have been directed to document a list of the companies’ directors within two weeks. The directions were issued in response to a petition filed by Suresh Kumar Kakkar and others on basis of an October 2010 joint collaboration implemented among them and Ansal Properties for the development of approximately 3.575 acres of land in Gurgaon.

Ansal agreed to develop the land by building a residential/group housing/commercial colony after acquiring all necessary permissions from the authorities. The company was allowed to sell “its share” of the project’s built-up area.

The petitioners claimed that because the developer failed to carry out any development on the land, they petitioned the court to prevent the company from creating any third-party rights on the plots.

The high court noted in its order that on the first date of the petitioner’s hearing (on January 14, 2022), the counsel for the developer stated that the status quo regarding title and possession of the properties, including the two plots in dispute, would be maintained.

The petitioners claimed that, notwithstanding the undertaking given to the court, the developer created third-party rights in favor of the finance company.

Ordering the status quo with regard to the “title, possession, and construction” of the two plots and noticing that the property developer and the finance company were “prima facie guilty of concealment of material facts,” the court concluded that “there is also merit in the petitioners’ contention” that even if certain transactions were decided to enter into between the developer as well as the finance company, “the identical cannot result in dilutions or extinction of the rights of the applicant.”