The High Court cannot interfere with ongoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the need for petitioners to pursue remedies within that framework.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms Vatsala, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ankit Prakash, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that all the writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and have sought similar reliefs, and that they may be heard and decided together.

3. The petitioners/home buyers claim to have been allotted residential flats in project ‘Knights Court’ - Jaypee Greens Wish Town, Sector-128, Noida, Uttar Pradesh developed by Builder-Respondent no.3/Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Aggrieved by the delay in completion of the project and handing over of possession of the flats in question, the petitioners in Writ- C No.38488 and Writ-C No.38521 of 2024, filed complaints before the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority [UPRERA]which were allowed in terms of the orders dated 6.5.2019, with a direction to respondent no.3 to handover possession within a period of 45 days from the date of the order, and in case it was unable to do so, to refund the amount deposited together with interest.

4. It is stated that respondent no.3-Builder neither handed over possession of the residential flats in question, nor refunded the amount, hence, in regard to the petitioners in Writ-C No.38488 and Writ-C No.38521 of 2024, recovery certificates, bearing dates 18.12.2020 and 10.1.2020 were issued by the UPRERA. An agreement dated 22.1.2021 was entered into between respondent no.3-Builder and the Association of Home Buyers of the Project, for completion of project and handing over possession to all the home buyers under the provisions of the UPRERA. Thereafter, an order of rehabilitation under Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 [Act, 2016]was passed by the UPRERA, directing completion of project and delivery of possession, within a specified time period. It has been asserted in Writ-C No.38488 of 2024 that upon consent being accorded by the petitioners, on 31.3.2021, an order was passed by the UPRERA, directing that recovery certificate issued pursuant to the order dated 6.5.2019 be kept in abeyance. The petitioners in Writ-C No.38521 of 2024 have also stated that they accorded their consent for completion of project and taking of possession consequent to the agreement dated 22.1.2021.

5. The petitioners in Writ-C No.38495 of 2024, also filed a complaint before the UPRERA, which was decided by means of an order dated 27.7.2021 wherein, keeping in view the order of rehabilitation which had been passed earlier, a direction was issued for refund of the amount on completion of the project after 30.4.2022. It is stated that due to non- compliance of the order by respondent no.3, the UPRERA issued a recovery certificate dated 22.5.2024, which has remained un-executed.

6. In due course of time, insolvency proceedings were initiated against respondent no.3-Builder on a petition filed by the Banks/Financial Institutions and a Resolution Professional [RP] was appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal [NCLT] to manage the affairs of respondent no.3-Builder.

7. The petitioners in Writ-C No.38488 and Writ-C No.38521 of 2024 submitted their claims on 15.6.2024 and 21.6.2024 respectively under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. [CIRP Regulations, 2016] The petitioners in Writ-C No.38495 of 2024 are stated to have sent an e-mail to the RP on 3.11.2024 for ‘conver