Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
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 
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Mansi Brar Fernandes – Appellant
Versus
Shubha Sharma – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. There are four appeals, which, having been heard together, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The first three appeals, viz., C.A. No. 3826 of 2020, C.A. No. 540 of 2021, and C.A. No. 5495 of 2025 arise out of the final judgment and order dated 17.11.20201[For short, “the first impugned order”] passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi2[For short, “the NCLAT”], in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 83 of 2020. The fourth appeal, viz., C.A. No. 3903 of 2022, is directed against the final judgment and order dated 12.08.20213[For short, “the second impugned order”] passed by the NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1020 of 2019.
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....
The court affirmed that once debt and default are established under Section 7 of the IBC, admission into CIRP is mandatory, preventing misuse of the process as merely a recovery mechanism.
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.
Investment agreements with assured returns classify creditors under IBC, necessitating compliance with Section 7 application thresholds.
The court established that insolvency processes for real estate should be project-specific, protecting homebuyers and ensuring fair treatment of creditors.
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