Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR
Vishal Chelani – Appellant
Versus
Debashis Nanda – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The appellants challenge a decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi1 [Order dated 28.02.2023 by NCLAT in C.A. (AT) No. 991/2022] (hereinafter referred to as “NCLAT”) which ruled that as beneficiary of a decree by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as “UPRERA”) the order of the Resolution Professional (R.P.) proposing that they be treated differently from other home buyers allottees, does not call for interference.
2. The brief facts are that the appellants are home buyers, who had opted for allotment in a real estate project of the respondent company (hereinafter referred to as “Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.” or “the respondent.” Aggrieved by the delay in the completion of the project, the appellants approached the UPRERA which by its orders upheld this entitlement to refund amounts deposited by the, together with interest. In the meantime, proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter
The Tribunal held that applicants who withdrew from a real estate project and obtained Recovery Certificates cannot pursue corporate insolvency under IBC, thus failing to meet the mandatory allottees....
Homebuyers are recognized as financial creditors under the Insolvency Code, critical for determining claims irrespective of the investor's speculative intentions.
The court affirmed the distinction between speculative investors and genuine homebuyers under the IBC, emphasizing that the Insolvency framework is meant for genuine claims and not for speculative pr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article