Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 3223
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Shri. Vinay Goel, Smt. Madhu Sinha, JJ
M/s. MIR Realtors Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Annie Abraham – Respondent
IA(IBC)/87/KOB/2025 | IBA/11/KOB/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Sasikumari
For the Respondents: Mr. Kaushik N. Sharma, Kevin Thomas, Mr. Mohan George Anzil Salim
The court upheld that allottees cannot claim exclusion from liquidation estate based merely on sale agreements when possession has not been transferred and property is subject to prior encumbrances.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 36(4)(a)(iv) & (b) and 60(5) - Liquidation process - Applicants, allottees of Apartment No. 2103 in 'Haritham' tower, sought exclusion of property from liquidation estate - Liquidator bound to recognize existing charge on property; applicants lack possession or title - Exclusion cannot be claimed merely based on registered sale agreement when terms allow mortgage - Applications dismissed. (Paras 1, 7, 11, 14, 21, 22)
(B) Liquidation Proceedings - Role of Liquidator - Liquidator must act in accordance with IBC provisions and recognize registered encumbrances while conducting sales - All claims must be filed during CIRP, with due interest contemplated in liquidation mechanism. (Paras 11, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Applicants, homebuyers of Apartment No. 2103, argued for exclusion from liquidation process after paying significant amount towards home loan and based on contract agreements. Respondents cited existing charge and incomplete possession status under IBC.
Findings of Court:
Right of Liquidator to include assets in the liquidation estate upheld; exclusion claims denied due to lack of possession and consideration of mortgage agreements acknowledged by applicants.
Issues: The legitimacy of exclusion claims based on sale agreements, the applicability of mortgage laws and the role of the Liquidator under the IBC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that despite having sale agreements, the applicants retain no vested rights as per IBC, as properties remain part of the liquidation estate in absence of transferable titles.
Result: Applications dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allottees claim exclusion from liquidation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against exemption from liquidation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of claims and legal frameworks. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal provisions regarding liquidation estate. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final analysis on claiming property rights. (Para 17 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. order for claim dismissal. (Para 23 , 24) |
O R D E R
Per: Coram
1. The application has been filed by the allottees of Apartment No. 2103 (Type C) in the 10th Floor ’Haritham’ residential tower in the real-estate project "THE GREENS" of MIR Realtors Private Limited (Corporate Debtor or ’CD’). The Applicants being allottees of the ’Haritham’ residential tower, have been considered as Financial Creditors within the meaning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , and have filed this application under Section 60 (5) and Section 36 (4)(a)(iv) &(b) of the IBC, 2016, seeking the following reliefs: -
a) To direct the 1st Respondent to exclude Apartment No.2103 (Type C), on the 10th Floor, Haritham Towers in MIR Greens Township in Karakulam Village, Thiruvananthapuram, from the Liquidation Estate Assets.
b) To direct the 1st Respondent to execute the Sale deed in favour of the Applicant and to consequently handover the possession of the same to the Applicants herein.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS
2. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of M/s. MIR Tribunal by way of order dated 16.11.2021 in IBA/11/KOB/2020. The Realtors Pvt Ltd., (‘Corporate Debtor’) was commenced by this Hon’ble Corporate Debtor is the Promoter of the said Haritham Towers in MIR Greens Township, under the Project named ‘MIR THE GREENS’ (hereinafter referred to as “Haritham Project”).
3. The Haritham Project is a township situated in 12 acres of land and it consists of 58 villas and 4 apartment towers consisting of 75 apartments each and in the present scenario only one tower has been completed in full whereas one is partially completed and no work has been commenced with respect to the remaining two towers. The Applicants herein had approached the Corporate Debtor and had purchased Apartment No.2103 (Type C), on the 10th Floor, Haritham Towers in MIR Greens Township in Karakulam Village, Thiruvananthapuram. (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Said Apartment’) and Corporate Debtor issued allotment letter 21.03.2015 bearing No. MIR TVM-FLO2103. The Corporate Debtor had executed a Sale Agreement dated 24.03.2015 registered as Document No.751/2015 in the SRO Karakulam in favour of the Applicants, and subsequently, a Construction Agreement dated 31.03.2015 was also executed wherein it was agreed by the Corporate Debtor that the apartment shall be handed over in December 2016.
4. The Applicants herein had spent a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) from their pockets and had availed a Loan Home Loan of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Lakhs Only) from ICICI Bank Limited, the 3rd Respondent herein towards payment of consideration for the purchase of the Said Apartment. The Applicants are still paying EMI amounting to Rs.38,391/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety-One Only) per month towards the Said Loan and approximately a sum of Rs. 47,00,000/- /- (Rupees Forty -Seven Lakhs Only) has been paid towards the said loan and it is to be noted that the Applicant have to pay the EMI for the next seven years to complete the said loan.
5. A Tripartite Agreement dated 30.03.2015 was executed amongst the Corporate Debtor as the First Party, the 3rd Respondent ICICI Bank Limited as the Second Party, and the Applicants herein as the Third Party. It is further submitted that despite knowing the fact that the 3rd Respondent herein, the ICICI Bank Pvt. Ltd. has the first charge over the said Property, the 1st Respondent Liquidator is trying to sell the property as part of the Liquidation estate which is clearly in violation of Section 36 (4) (a) (iv) & (b) of the IBC, 2016. As
