Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Bijoy Pulipra
For the Respondents: Mr. Kevin Thomas, Mr. Mohan Jacob George
For the Respondent No. 4: None appeared

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The judgment analyzes whether unregistered sale agreements create valid security interests and whether homebuyers’ apartments/UDS can be excluded from the liquidation estate (!) (!) (!) . - It references Section 36 of the IBC 2016 to define the liquidation estate and what assets may be excluded (!) (!) . - It cites Regulation 46A of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations 2016 permitting exclusion of allottee possession assets from the liquidation estate in real estate projects (!) (!) (!) . - The court holds that the mortgage in favor of Federal Bank is valid and that homebuyers’ claims are subordinate to that mortgage, with claims admitted under CIRP and paid via waterfall, not excluding the assets from liquidation (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It concludes that unregistered agreements cannot confer a valid security interest, and that the assets (apartments/UDS) do not form part of the liquidation estate if possession has been given or rights recognized, but here the assets are contested under Section 36(4) and Regulation 21 of IBBI Regulations (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The tribunal dismisses the application for exclusion of flats from the liquidation estate, noting limited locus and the need to follow IBC rules and regulatory provisions (!) (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes priority of the secured creditor’s mortgage and that homebuyers’ rights are to be resolved within the liquidation process under the IBC framework (!) (!) (!) . - The Tribunal notes that the homebuyers’ association’s role is acknowledged but does not grant relief to exclude Schedule B properties from liquidation (!) (!) . - The order directs the registry to send copies to parties and states that a certified copy may be issued upon compliance (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?