Oberoi Realty's Three Sixty North hits a legal hurdle as Punjab and Haryana High Court restrains fresh allotments in its Debut Gurgaon Project

At a glance

• By order dated 7 July 2026, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has restrained Oberoi Realty and its co-respondents from making any further allotments or creating further third-party rights at Three Sixty North, Sector 58 until the DTCP decides a pending plea to cancel the project licence.
• The freeze is forward-looking: it does not, on its own terms, unwind the roughly 350 allotments already made or stay construction.
• The objector is Advance India Projects Ltd (AIPL), whose challenge to the land's title predates the launch by years and which had lost or withdrawn at every prior stage.
• HARERA's registration already ties the project's regulatory footing to a Supreme Court appeal and a CBI/ED investigation, with mandatory litigation disclosure.
• Next hard date: 20 July 2026 the DTCP must decide the licence-cancellation complaint. The main writ is listed for 19 August 2026.

GURUGRAM, July 9, 2026. Two days after Oberoi Realty reported about ₹8,109 crore in bookings at Three Sixty North, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by order dated 7 July 2026, restrained the developer and its co-respondents from making any further allotments at the Sector 58 project and from creating any further third-party rights, until the DTCP decides a pending plea to cancel the project licence.

Read on its own, that looks like a bolt from the blue on a project that had just sold roughly 51 percent of its ₹16,000 crore revenue potential.

It is not a bolt from the blue. The objector is Advance India Projects Ltd (AIPL), and the fight predates the launch by years. The clearest account of it is not in any press release. It is in two primary documents: Oberoi's HARERA Gurugram registration order for Three Sixty North Tower E, heard on 22 June 2026, and the High Court's interim order of 7 July 2026.

RERA Tracker has read both line by line. Here is what they establish from the record, not from marketing.

The chain of title, which is the real fight

The 14.816-acre parcel at Village Ghata, Sector 58, did not start as Oberoi land. Per the order, it sits on licenses 63 of 2009, 107 of 2010, and 60 of 2012, and was held by entities forming part of the IREO Group foreign-investment-backed and operating under the automatic FDI route.

IREO launched a residential project on this land, the "Grand Hyatt Residences," allotted apartments to around 70 customers, and collected roughly ₹400 crore. The project stalled. This is the same stalled, Foster and Partners-designed Hyatt precinct that Oberoi has been demolishing floor by floor to build Three Sixty North.

The sequence from there, as the order records it:

Date	Event
2009–2012	Licenses 63/2009, 107/2010 and 60/2012 issued; land held by IREO Group entities under the automatic FDI route
—	IREO launches "Grand Hyatt Residences"; ~70 allotments, ~₹400 crore collected; project stalls
2 Mar 2021	IREO–AIPL MoU: AIPL to pay ₹37.50 crore and settle existing customers' claims
6 Jun 2021	IREO's customers reject AIPL as developer, citing lack of luxury-project expertise; Delhi High Court notes the rejection on 8 June 2021
21 Jan 2022	IREO terminates the AIPL MoU, AIPL had neither paid nor settled claims
2 Mar 2022	IREO and Oberoi Realty sign an MoU
17 Nov 2023	Agreement for Sale, IREO to Oberoi
1 Apr 2024	DTCP rejects AIPL's challenge to the license transfer
7 May 2024	Registered Sale Deed (document no. 2526), land transfers to Oberoi
12 May 2025	License 69 of 2025 granted
17 Jun 2025	Change of developer to Oberoi approved
19 May 2026	Building plan approved

Who AIPL is, and what it is asking

AIPL is a Gurugram-based developer. It filed two representations with HARERA, dated 19 May 2026 and 12 June 2026, asking the Authority not to register Oberoi's project at all.

Its case, as recorded in the order, is that the project land is tainted by serious illegality: violation of the consolidated FDI Policy, unlawful transfer of the licensed land and development rights, and non-completion of development obligations. It had earlier asked the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana, to cancel the license through a representation dated 29 April 2026, and it has a writ petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP No. 16884 of 2026, listed for hearing on 19 August 2026.

AIPL's prayer to HARERA was sweeping: refrain from granting registration, or keep it in abeyance, and direct that no marketing, booking, allotment, or creation of third-party rights be undertaken pending adjudication. That last request is the one that now matters most, it is precisely the activity the High Court has since frozen.

AIPL's litigation record, from the order

The order lays out a long string of AIPL actions, and the outcomes are consistent:

Forum & case	Outcome
Civil suit, Delhi High Court (April 2022)	Withdrawn
Civil suit, Gurgaon Civil Court	Rejected
Commercial Suit No. 94 of 2023, Gurgaon injunction to bar third-party rights	Rejected by the District Court, 16 Oct 2024
First Appeal No. 16 of 2024, Punjab & Haryana High Court	Dismissed, 2 Apr 2026
CWP No. 10610 of 2025, challenging a DTCP order	Dismissed as withdrawn
Complaint alleging a forged termination letter	No FIR resulted

On the criminal track, a later complaint led a Magistrate to direct an FIR on 17 February 2024. The Sessions Court stayed it on 21 February 2024, the criminal revisions were dismissed on 1 June 2024, and the High Court dismissed the promoter's challenge on 6 June 2024.

Then the Supreme Court stepped in. By order dated 14 June 2024, it stayed the FIR proceeding and framed the question of whether AIPL's complaint amounts to an abuse of process and whether AIPL approached the court with unclean hands. That question is still open.

The order records the promoter's position that these are frivolous litigations and, importantly, that no interim relief had been granted in AIPL's favour in any of them as of the HARERA hearing.

What HARERA actually decided

This is where the filing does the work a press release never will. HARERA did three things.

1. It refused to judge the core allegations. FDI-policy violation, unlawful transfer, and non-completion of development obligations are inter-se rights disputes that fall outside the Authority's jurisdiction at the registration stage. It dismissed AIPL's representations of 19 May and 12 June 2026 as not maintainable, while noting that AIPL remains free to pursue remedies before the appropriate forums.

2. It found the existing allottees safeguarded. On the transfer-of-rights question under Section 15 of the RERA Act, the math in the order runs:

• 69 units sold by the erstwhile developer
• 14 allottees took refunds, leaving 55 of whom 53 are unique allottees
• Two-thirds threshold: 36 consents needed
• Oberoi obtained 47 of 53

On that basis, HARERA found no Section 15 violation.

3. It granted registration with strings attached. This is the line that should travel with every cost sheet. The registration is expressly made subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court in CA No. 8977 of 2014 (Jai Narayan and others vs State of Haryana) and connected appeals, and to the final outcome of a CBI/ED investigation. The Authority also directed Oberoi to disclose the pending litigation in the project brochure, in marketing material, and in the registration certificate itself. A late fee of ₹1,47,34,488, payable by the erstwhile promoter, was recorded as recoverable in the Phase 1 application.

In short: HARERA cleared the project to sell, but it did not clear the title fight. It parked that with the courts and stamped the uncertainty onto the registration certificate.

The stay order: what the High Court actually did

HARERA's June order had recorded that no court had granted AIPL any interim relief up to that point. On 7 July 2026 that changed.

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justices Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Sanjiv Berry, passed an interim order in CWP No. 16884 of 2026 (Advance India Projects Ltd vs Director, DTCP Haryana and others). In it, IREO's companies are respondents 3 to 13, and Oberoi Realty is respondent 14, described by the court as a subsequent assignee of the same land.

AIPL had asked the court to stay Licence No. 69 of 2025 dated 12 May 2025 and the 17 June 2025 order approving the change of developer in Oberoi's favour. It reached this hearing through the Supreme Court: a coordinate bench had declined interim relief on 27 May 2026, AIPL took that to the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 21690 of 2026, and the Supreme Court on 16 June 2026 gave liberty to seek interim relief before the High Court. The main writ remains listed for 19 August 2026.

The court did not decide the licence's validity. It sent that question to the DTCP, where AIPL's cancellation complaint under Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 is pending, and directed the DTCP to decide it by 20 July 2026 or failing that, on a day-to-day basis within a further two weeks by a speaking order after hearing all stakeholders.

Pending that decision, the operative direction is unambiguous:

No further allotment shall be made by respondents 3 to 14 to any further prospective allottee, and no further third-party rights shall be created.

That answers the scope question directly. The order is forward-looking. It stops new allotments and new third-party rights until the DTCP rules. It does not, on its own terms, unwind the allotments already made.

The title point at the centre of it

The strongest argument on the record is narrow and factual. Under Section 3 of the 1975 Act, a colony licence can be granted only to the owner of the land with clear title, and Section 3(2) requires the Director to enquire into the title before granting it.

AIPL argued that the land had already been sold to Oberoi (respondent 14) by the registered sale deed of 7 May 2024 almost a year before Licence No. 69 of 2025 was granted on 12 May 2025 to respondent 10. On that timeline, the entity that received the licence was not the owner of the land when it was granted.

The court recorded that the respondents did not dispute the timing. Their position was that on the date the licence was granted, respondent 10 was not the owner and respondent 14 was, but that this was part of the process to be undertaken. Whether that sequence is lawful under Section 3 is exactly what the court has left the DTCP to decide by 20 July.

Oberoi Realty's response

Oberoi Realty has responded to the order through an official communication, and makes three points explicitly:

1. The order does not impact any of the sales already concluded that is, the bookings it disclosed to the exchanges on 5 July 2026.
2. There is no stay on the construction of the project.
3. The company believes the order has no adverse material impact on its business or operations.

The first two points align with the text of the order. The restraint runs to further allotments and fresh third-party rights going forward, and does not on its own terms disturb allotments already made, which supports the company's position on concluded sales. The order also addresses allotments and third-party rights rather than construction, so there is indeed no stay on building.

The third point is the company's own assessment of materiality. It sits alongside the fact that HARERA's registration and with it the project's regulatory footing remains expressly subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal, the CBI/ED investigation, and now the DTCP's decision on the licence, due by 20 July.

The numbers cited in court

The figures placed before the High Court are worth setting against the launch numbers.

Counsel told the court, and the respondents confirmed on instructions, that roughly 350 units had already been allotted and about ₹750 crore collected from allottees, with the process ongoing on a day-to-day basis, and that the project's tentative valuation is ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 crore. Oberoi is recorded as having invested about ₹500 crore so far, and argued that stalling the process would cause it irreparable loss.

These are cash-and-count figures, distinct from the ₹8,109 crore gross booking value Oberoi disclosed to the exchanges on 5 July, which measures the total contracted value of units booked rather than money actually received.

The respondents also argued that AIPL has no locus, that the writ is not maintainable after a one-year delay, and that any FDI violation, if it exists at all, is compoundable. The court did not rule on those defences at the interim stage.

What this means for a buyer

Read the registration certificate before the brochure. By HARERA's own direction, the certificate carries a litigation disclosure and the conditional language tying validity to the Supreme Court appeal and the CBI/ED investigation. A buyer at Three Sixty North is buying into a title whose final standing is expressly linked to litigation that is still running.

Before transacting, that means checking:

• The registration certificate - it carries the litigation disclosure by HARERA's direction; Tower E's certificate is on haryanarera.gov.in
• The DTCP's decision on the licence-cancellation complaint, due by 20 July 2026
• CWP No. 16884 of 2026 - P&H High Court, listed 19 August 2026
• CA No. 8977 of 2014 - the Supreme Court appeal the registration is subject to
• The CBI/ED investigation - the second condition on the registration

For scale, the Tower E specifics from the order:

None of this is a verdict on Oberoi's product, its balance sheet, or its delivery record, which remain strong. It is a statement of legal exposure that a buyer takes on with the unit — and that exposure is now documented by both the regulator and the High Court, not merely alleged by a rival. The consents of 47 of 53 existing allottees address the Section 15 question. They do not resolve the FDI and title questions, which sit above HARERA's remit and are now before the High Court and the DTCP.

What RERA Tracker is tracking

• 20 July 2026 the DTCP must decide AIPL's licence-cancellation complaint by a speaking order, or begin day-to-day hearings and rule within a further two weeks. The fresh-allotment freeze holds until that decision.
• 19 August 2026 the main writ, CWP No. 16884 of 2026, is listed before the P&H High Court.
• The Supreme Court matter and the CBI/ED investigation continue in the background, with HARERA's registration expressly tied to their outcomes.
• Any disclosure Oberoi Realty files with the exchanges.

We will index each primary document on this project's RERA Tracker pages and update this article as the record develops. The registered towers, with their HARERA registrations:

Tower	RERA ID	RERA Tracker page
Tower A	RERA-GRG-2240-2026	View project
Tower B	RERA-GRG-2241-2026	View project
Tower C	RERA-GRG-2242-2026	View project
Tower E	RERA-GRG-2243-2026	View project
Tower F	RERA-GRG-2244-2026	View project
Tower G	RERA-GRG-2245-2026	View project

About RERA Tracker

RERA Tracker is India's real estate intelligence platform, built on filed data rather than broker hearsay. We track 12,000-plus projects and have verified 5,000-plus builders, pulling actual HARERA and MahaRERA documents, price history, land records, developer track records and litigation into a single research desk with deep NCR coverage across Gurugram, Noida, Greater Noida, Sohna and Ghaziabad, and a growing footprint across other states.

This story is the clearest example of why that matters. A launch can report a near sell-out while its own registration order says the title is subject to a Supreme Court appeal and a CBI/ED investigation, and a High Court freezes fresh allotments two days later. The brochure will not tell you that. The filings do and reading the filings is the whole job.

This article is based on two primary documents: the HARERA Gurugram registration order for Three Sixty North Tower E (Promoter: M/s Oberoi Realty Ltd), and the Punjab and Haryana High Court's interim order dated 7 July 2026 in CWP No. 16884 of 2026 (Advance India Projects Ltd vs Director, DTCP Haryana and others), supported by public reporting on the project. All litigation facts, dates, and figures are drawn from those orders. For information only, not legal or investment advice. Buyers should verify current status on haryanarera.gov.in and seek independent legal counsel before transacting.