Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 430

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J
Navin M. Raheja – Appellant
Versus
Shravan Minocha – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1276 of 2025 | I.A. Nos. 5572, 5923, 5948, 5949, 6111, 6203, 6244, 6270, 6291, 6312, 6316, 6328, 6329, 6330, 6373, 6379, 6430, 6547, 6576, 6709, 6739, 6874, 6992, 6994, 6995, 7251, 7392, 7422, 7452, 7485, 7495, 7528, 7531, 7532, 7533, 7534, 7535, 7536, 7537, 7538, 7539, 7540, 7664, 7665, 7801, 7830, 7910, 7911, 7912, 7913, 8015, 8016 of 2025 | I.A. Nos. 261, 321, 324, 325, 335, 340, 575, 823, 824, 976, 1076, 1083, 1120, 1311, 1312, 1316, 1494, 1583, 1606, 1662, 1813, 1874, 1956, 1964 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. P. Nagesh, Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Mr. Rohan Anand, Mr. Jai Dagra, Ms. Kholi B., Mr. Akkshya Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Vashisth, Mr. Atul Sharma, Mrs. Renuka Iyer, Mr. Anmol Bansal, Ms. Akshita, Mrs. Abilaasha, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Ms. Shweta Priyadarshini, Ms. Nishi Singh, Ms. Bhagwati, Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee, Ms. Samridhi, Ms. Pranjal Mishra, Ms. Ishita Singh, Mr. Sahil Sethi, Ms. Arushi Mann, Mr. Vikash Kumar, Mr. Samriddh Bindal, Mr. Aaditya Vijaykumar, Mr. Naman Garg, Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Nishi Chaudhary, Mr. Yashartha Gupta, Mr. Kamlesh Ram, Mr. Gautam Pal, Ms. Prerna Sharma, Mr. Sunny Vashisht, Mr. Sahil Grewal, Mr. Mani Bhushan Sinha, Mr. Shashak Pathak, Mr. Siddhant Jaiswal, Mr. Ketan Madan, Mr. Priyam Kamra, Mrs. Pranjeet Kaur, Mr. Sajal Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra, Mr. Aachit Sharma

CIRP initiated by homebuyers of one real estate project against developer must be confined to that project only, not extended corporate-wide, to protect other projects and stakeholders.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against real estate company - Section 7 application filed by financial creditors in a class (homebuyers) allotted units in one specific project - Adjudicating authority admitted application initiating CIRP against corporate debtor - Appeal challenging admission - CIRP initiated by homebuyers of one project must be confined to that project only and cannot extend to other projects of corporate debtor - Other projects and stakeholders unaffected - Principles reiterated that resolution of real estate insolvency should proceed on project-specific basis to protect solvent projects and homebuyers from collateral prejudice - IRP to collate claims limited to the project, update claims after payments, issue corrigendum for project-specific claims - Liberty to financial creditors of other projects to pursue independent proceedings - Liberty to applicants to file Section 12A application if settlement reached (Paras 10-19).

(B) Real Estate Projects - CIRP Scope - When financial creditors or homebuyers of one project initiate CIRP, process confined to that project’s assets and creditors - Cannot maximize assets of other separate projects - Supported by precedents emphasizing project-wise insolvency to balance stakeholders of specific project without jeopardizing others (Paras 12-18).

Facts of the case:
Financial creditors in a class, homebuyers allotted units in a specific affordable group housing project (licensed and RERA-registered, comprising multiple towers and units, possession due by stipulated date but defaulted), filed Section 7 application alleging debt and default. Adjudicating authority admitted petition, initiated CIRP. Suspended director appealed, offering settlement with interest, part payments made. Various intervenors (financial institutions, other homebuyers) appeared opposing settlement or seeking continuation. Tribunal stayed further steps pending decision.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order modified confining CIRP to the specific project. IRP to issue corrigendum for project-specific claims within 14 days, update claims of original applicants post-payments. Other creditors free to file project-specific claims or pursue independent proceedings for other projects.

Issues: Whether CIRP against real estate corporate debtor, initiated by financial creditors in a class of one project, should be confined to that project or extend corporate-wide; role of IRP in claim collation and payments; rights of other project creditors and institutions.

Ratio Decidendi: Law settled that CIRP by homebuyers/financial creditors of one real estate project must be limited to that project to safeguard interests of other projects' stakeholders; corporate-wide CIRP unwarranted when default pertains to single project, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents on project-specific resolution.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; impugned admission order modified to confine CIRP to the project; pending IAs disposed; parties bear own costs.

Table of Content
1. project background and licensing details (Para 1)
2. parties' contentions on project-specific cirp (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. cirp confinement to specific real estate project (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. directions for claims collation and project isolation (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This appeal be a suspended director of the corporate debtor namely M/s. Raheja Developers Ltd. has been filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court – IV admitting a Section 7 application (C.P. (IB) No.–284/2025) filed by respondent No.1 to respondents No. 130, the creditors in a class, homebuyers of Project namely Raheja Krishna Housing Scheme.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeal are:

i. M/s. Raheja Developers Ltd. is a Real Estate Company engaged in development of Real Estate Infrastructure in State of Haryana and other places.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1276 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 5572, 5923, 5948, 5949, 6111, 6203, 6244, 6270, 6291, 6312, 6316, 6328, 6329, 6330, 6373, 6379, 6430, 6547, 6576, 6709,

ii. The corporate debtor for developing Krishna Housing Scheme obtained License No. 115/2014 by the Directorate of Town & Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana for setting of Group Housing Colony.

iii. The Project was granted a Registration Certificate by Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) vide Registration No. 21/2017. In the Project, the corporate debtor had made allotment to various homebuyers of different units. The Krishna Housing Scheme is an Affordable Group Housing Colony Project on land measuring 10 acres in Sector – 14, Sohna, Gurugram.

iv. The corporate debtor made allotment to the total 1644 units plus commercial units integrated with retail complex land with all basic amenities.

v. Builder Buyers Agreement (BBA) was also entered by the corporate debtor with the allottees. The Project was required to be completed and possession handover by the corporate debtor on 10.06.2019.

vi. On default having been committed by the corporate debtor in handing over the possession, an application under Section 7 was filed by Shravan Minocha and 129 other unitholders, financial creditor in a class, Company Petition on 28.02.2025, alleging a default on the part of corporate debtor.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1276 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 5572, 5923, 5948, 5949, 6111, 6203, 6244, 6270, 6291, 6312, 6316, 6328, 6329, 6330, 6373, 6379, 6430, 6547, 6576, 6709, vii. Under Part IV of the application, total amount of debt was claimed giving details of each financial creditor having paid the amount, for example, Shravan Minocha – R-1, who was allotted Unit D 2 – 3005 had paid an amount of Rs.14,14,169/-. Total amount claimed was mentioned in Part IV.

viii. Financial creditor in a class has pleaded in their application that they were allotted units in a Project namely “Raheja Krishna Housing Scheme” situated in Sector 14 after obtaining license from DTCP which Project is also registered with the RERA as Registration No.21/2017. Details of the amount paid by all the applicants was mentioned.

ix. It was pleaded that as per Clause 4.5 of the Agreement to sell failure or delay in payment of instalment, corporate debtor was to charge 15% interest per annum. It was pleaded that corporate debtor was obliged to deliver possession of the units by 10.06.2019, in which corporate debtor miserably failed.

x. Adjudicating authority issued notice in Section 7 application. The corporate debtor appeared and filed its reply. Corporate debtor pleaded that the Project “Krishna Housing Scheme” is a Project which is under Affordable Housing Scheme qualifying under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna and Rinn Yojna which comprises 11 towers with of 1-2 BHK Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1276 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 5572, 5923, 5948, 5949, 6111, 6203, 6244, 6270, 6291, 6312, 6316, 6328, 6329, 6330, 6373, 6379, 6430, 6547, 6576, 6709, c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 430

CIRP initiated by homebuyers of one real estate project against developer must be confined to that project only, not extended corporate-wide, to protect other projects and stakeholders.

Cases Referred (1)