Delhi High Court Stays Attachment Against M3M On Condition of 50% Payment Of Decretal Amount To Homebuyers

The Delhi High Court has recently stayed the operation of warrants of attachment issued against M3M India Private Limited in execution proceedings tied to a refund order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The relief is conditional. M3M must deposit 50% of the decretal amount within 15 days, failing which the interim protection will automatically stand vacated.

“Subject to payment of 50% of the decretal amount by the petitioner to the respondent/decree holder within a period of 15 days from today, the operation of the warrants of attachment shall remain stayed,” Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said.

He clarified that the payment would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

The case stems from a residential unit booked in February 2018 in M3M's Gurugram project. An apartment buyer agreement followed on April 3, 2018. The buyers later approached the State Commission, alleging deficiencies in service. Their complaint pointed to defects in the apartment and a failure to honour contractual assurances.

On December 15, 2025, the Commission allowed the complaint. It directed M3M to refund Rs 3,95,12,772 along with interest. The developer was found deficient in service and in breach of its contractual obligations.

Execution proceedings followed before the Commission. By an order dated March 16, 2026, it directed issuance of warrants of attachment. These extended to properties of third parties to secure recovery of the decretal amount.

M3M moved the High Court challenging the execution order. Its grievance was specific. The company argued that properties belonging to third parties, who were not part of the proceedings, had been subjected to attachment.

At the hearing, M3M stated it was ready to deposit 50% of the decretal amount with the decree holder within 15 days. The offer, it said, was without prejudice to its rights.

The Court took note that the third parties whose properties were attached had not challenged the order themselves. It then directed that the warrants of attachment would remain stayed, subject to the deposit being made within the stipulated period. The Court reiterated that the deposit would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

If the amount is not deposited within 15 days, the interim protection will cease to operate. With this, the petition was disposed of, leaving all rights and contentions open.

For Petitioner (M3M India Private Limited): Advocates Manish K. Jha, Raymon Singh, Himanshu Mishra, Mahima Rai, Astha Sarin, Rajat Juneja.

For Respondent (Bhavya Doshi & Anr.): Advocates Ishita Singh, Pranjal Mishra.