Gurugram: The Gurugram legal fraternity has been dumbfounded as a judge advanced the hearing in a case involving a plot, estimated to be worth Rs 2,000 crore, from December to July, and took just two weeks to deliver the judgement in the favour of a builder, just three days before he retired.
Between 14 and 28 July, when the verdict was delivered, the judge disposed of a stay application, framed issues, examined evidence and rebuttal evidence, and heard arguments.
Civil Judge (Senior Division), or CJ (SD), Ramesh Chander’s verdict went in favour of the builder, Lekh Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, ending a more than three-year-old legal battle over one of Gurugram’s costliest commercial plots in which the builder had already moved commercial courts, the high court, and the Supreme Court. The case originated in 2022. The value of the plot has appreciated massively since then, according to market watchers.
While the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) has moved an appeal in the higher court, the judge’s conduct has prompted the Gurugram District Bar Association to lodge a formal complaint with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, highlighting, what they claimed, were alleged corrupt practices and procedural lapses in the speedy disposal of the high-stakes civil suit.
The 11 September complaint was addressed to the administrative judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal.
Judge Ramesh Chander was working as the chief judicial magistrate of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) till 28 May, when Rajat Verma was appointed in his place, and Chander was given the charge of CJ (SD), Gurugram.
A thread of daily orders passed in the case, titled Lekh Buildtech Vs Haryana Shehri Vikas Nigam, shows that on 29 May, the file of this case, being heard so far by another CJ (SD), Amit Gautam, came to Chander for hearing and he adjourned the case to 12 December.
“Rejoinder on behalf of plaintiff to the Written Statement of defendant has been filed. Now to come up on 18.12.2025 for arguments on the stay application. Interim order, if any shall continue till further orders,” Chander’s 29 May order reads.
However, a fortnight ahead of his retirement, he advanced the case to 14 July on the application by the plaintiff, Lekh Buildtech Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of leading builder and developer M3M India Pvt Ltd, according to the judgment.
Once preponed, the case was then taken up on 15 July, 17 July, 18 July, 19 July, 22 July, 24 July and then 25 July, when the court disposed of the pending stay application, finished framing of issues, concluded the examination of plaintiff and defendant evidence, rebuttal evidence, and the arguments on the main case.
On 28 July, Chander delivered a 63-page judgment in the case in favour of the builder. The judge demitted office 31 July upon retirement.
Also Read: ‘Cash for bail’: Judge transferred amid Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch probe, court staffer booked
‘Gross abuse’
In a scathing letter, the Bar association sought the high court’s immediate investigation into the listing and hearing of case—CS-3494-2024 (CNR No. HRGR02-005307-2024)—captioned “M/s Lekh Buildtech Pvt Ltd versus Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran”.
The Bar alleged a “gross abuse of judicial office” and said the case has eroded public trust in the judiciary. It urged the registration of a case against the judge and all parties concerned under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Written on the letter head of the District Bar Association (DBA), the complaint is signed by its president Nikesh Raj Yadav, office-bearers and over 100 other lawyers practising in the district court.
The District Bar Association, Yadav said, is firmly committed to upholding a free, fair, and corruption-free judicial system.
“As officers of the court and custodians of justice, we cannot remain silent in the face of rampant corruption within the judiciary, which threatens the very foundation of our legal system. In line with this commitment, the DBA Gurugram has taken a clear and resolute stand against such malpractice,” Yadav told ThePrint Wednesday,
“A detailed complaint highlighting serious concerns has been formally submitted to the Inspecting/Administrative Judge of the Sessions Division, Gurugram, for appropriate inquiry and necessary action.”
Advocate Ritu Bhariok, the legal advisor for Justice for Homebuyers, told ThePrint that the Bar members have been in a state of shock since the judge passed this order.
“Just a look at the thread of business carried out in this case between 14 July and 28 July. It is enough to say that the case needs a detailed investigation. I would further demand that the Punjab and Haryana High Court act promptly so that the trust of people in the institution of judiciary is not shattered,” said Bhariok.
When ThePrint reached M3M India Pvt Ltd for a comment, they said the matter is sub-judice, with HSVP itself having preferred an appeal.
“We will not speculate further except to reiterate our confidence in the courts,” said the agency handling its public relations. “We can’t speculate on motives. What we can say is that the matter is already before the courts, and that is where we will continue to place our faith. It is not unusual for large-scale commercial disputes to attract speculation and rumour, often amplified by vested interests.”
The agency said the builder’s role is that of a litigant, not a party to any alleged impropriety. “We should not comment on the Bar, judiciary, or individuals. The Bar complaint is based on hearsay and has no factual substantiation.”
The beginning of saga
In March 2022, the HSVP sold the premium plot—Site No. 4, Sector-43, Gurugram—measuring 3.53 acres.
Lekh Buildtech made the highest bid, a whopping Rs 495 crore. The builder-developer remitted 25 percent of the sum, approximately Rs 123.7 crore. The Letter of Intent (LoI) that the HSVP sent 19 May 2022 said the remaining 75 percent is to be paid in one go within 120 days.
However, the builder then alleged the plot measured 3.14 acre rather than 3.53 acre, and demanded a proportionate price adjustment. It also demanded liberty to make payment as per the previous policy that permitted staggered instalments.
However, the HSVP made it clear that the builder was legally obligated to the LoI and that failure to pay within 120 days would result in automatic cancellation and forfeiture of the Rs 123 crore already paid.
In November 2022, Lekh Buildtech moved the Gurugram Commercial Court under the Arbitration Act, but the petition was rejected in September 2023. The builder’s plea in the Punjab and Haryana High Court was dismissed in August 2023, with the court observing that the builder had agreed to the terms of the LoI by making partial payment.
The builder then approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, but it was withdrawn in October 2023. A writ petition in the high court questioning a re-auction attempt was also withdrawn.
The builder, later, initiated the civil suit in Gurugram on 11 November 2024. Between 11 November 2024 and 29 May 2025, when the case came before Chander, the case was adjourned six times. On November 14, the HSVP filed its reply.
From 14 July onward, the civil judge heard the case at an unprecedented speed.
Bar’s contention
In its complaint to the high court’s administrative judge, the Bar Association said, “…from 14 July 2025 onwards, the case was expedited in a ‘theatrical and alarming’ way: listed day by day on 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, and 25 July, followed by a final judgment on 28 July 2025 in favour of the plaintiff.”
This “unprecedented urgency”, the Bar association said, occurred just three days before the judge’s retirement on 31 July, despite no compelling reason for such haste in a case pending for over five months amid thousands of others awaiting interim relief.
“The hasty and seemingly choreographed proceedings, in a case involving crores of rupees, give very strong indication of personal interest and suspected external influence,” it alleges, describing a pattern at variance with impartial adjudication.
It alleges the judge knew he was going to retire, and crossed limits of judicial propriety, impartiality and dignity and cast a shadow of suspicion on the process.
The complaint characterises this as a “serious and systemic violation of integrity” that is corrosive to public trust and calls for urgent inquiry to preserve the dignity of the judiciary.
The association has requested the high court to keep on record CCTV footage from Chander’s court from 1-30 July, as well as hearing records.
The Bar said it has also made a separate application before the Gurugram district and sessions court for directions to obtain this evidence, stressing that such surveillance can be key evidence of misconduct or outside interference.
Gurugram court’s order
In the 63-page order, each page signed by him, Chander framed seven issues and dealt with each of them. A perusal of the court order, accessed by The Print, shows that issues 1 to 3 were dealt with together in the judgment.
The three issues were—whether the LoI by HSVP dated 19 May 2022 is valid, subsisting, binding and enforceable; whether withdrawal and forfeiture of Rs 123.7 crore by HSVP is bad in law; and whether the “defendant has the right to demand payment only for the actual revised area (3.14 acres)” and if the payment schedule mentioned in the LoI will stand revised accordingly.
The court decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff, the builder, citing nearly half a dozen judgments of the Supreme Court on these issues.
“Defendant’s failure to disclose or demarcate pre-auction was arbitrary and non-transparent, violating public obligations under statutory auctions. No ‘AS IS WHERE IS BASIS’ (The HSVP’s way of describing the properties) covers such material non-disclosure of area,” the court said about the claimed difference in the land area.
The court ruled that the HSPV’s demand to pay the lump sum amount (the balance 75 percent, as as mentioned in the LOI) in one go within 120 days was unjustified as the policy that was in effect when the plot bid was advertised allowed the payments to be made in six half-yearly installments.
The new policy, which came into effect 28 March 2022, was notified after the bid was advertised and it was without retrospective effect, the court said. The bid was advertised 12 March and the auction was conducted 31 March.
The fourth issue framed by the court, whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief with costs, was decided against the defendants, the HSVP.
Other issues pertain to additional pleas like limitation, jurisdiction, or preliminary objections not central to merits, and the onus lied with the defendants. These issues were also decided against the defendants and hence the case was decided in favour of the plaintiff.
When contacted by ThePrint, HSVP chief administrator Chander Shekhar Khare said his team moved an appeal against the order in the Gurugram district court.
“The HSVP’s interests have been hurt by the 28 July order of the Gurugram civil judge. Hence, exercising our rights, we have moved an appeal before the district judge within the stipulated time,” said Khare.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)