SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1168

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Praveen Gupta, Judicial Member, Ashish Verma, Technical Member
SNIGDHA PARAKH – Appellant
Versus
BHUVAN MADAN – Respondent
I.A. No. 122 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Thakur Ankit Singh, Dr. Farrukh Khan, Dinkar Tiwari, Khushboo Sai Khurana

Final RERA refund decree crystallises homebuyer rights to refund, barring possession claims in CIRP; RP bound by decree and resolution plan exit policy without order modification.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) r/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 31, 39, 44 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Homebuyers with final refund decree from RERA - Entitlement to possession denied - Applicants allotted residential unit, paid substantial amounts, obtained RERA refund order after failed possession claim, received partial recovery pre-CIRP, sought possession post-CIRP claiming financial creditor status - RP classified under exit policy per approved resolution plan - Final RERA order crystallises rights to refund; cannot be altered in collateral IBC proceedings - Rectification application rejected, no appeal filed, order attained finality - RP bound by decree and plan terms - Claim for possession not maintainable, confined to refund mechanism under exit policy. (Paras 15, 16)

(B) IBC - Resolution Plan - Binding nature - Approved plan provides exit policy for homebuyers with refund decrees, limiting to refund in instalments sans possession - CoC deliberations affirm Category 'D' allottees entitled only to refund unless RERA order modified. (Paras 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
Applicants booked residential unit, paid consideration, faced project delay, secured RERA refund order with recovery certificate, received partial payments pre-CIRP, paid balance post-order on assurances, filed CIRP claim for possession as financial creditors in class, RP rejected citing final RERA decree and resolution plan exit policy.

Findings of Court:
Rights crystallised by final RERA refund decree; no reopening in IBC summary proceedings - Entitlement confined to refund per approved resolution plan's exit policy.

Issues: Whether homebuyers holding final RERA refund decree can claim unit possession during CIRP despite RP's reliance on decree and resolution plan; effect of partial pre-CIRP recovery and post-decree payments on allottee status.

Ratio Decidendi: Final adjudication by RERA granting refund over possession binds parties; cannot be recharacterised under IBC - Resolution plan's exit policy governs such claimants, prioritising decreed relief over alternate possession claims absent modification of RERA order.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application seeks possession despite rera refund order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. allottees remain financial creditors entitled to possession. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. rera refund order final; possession not permissible. (Para 6)
4. rera refund decree crystallizes rights excluding possession. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. resolution plan exit policy governs refund decree holders. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. application dismissed; confined to refund relief. (Para 17)

ORDER

1. This present application is filed on 16.04.2025, by Snigdha Parakh and Arvind Parikh (hereinafter collectively referred as “Applicants”) under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) read with Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 against the Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred as “Respondent/RP”) of Jaiprakash Associates Limited i.e., Corporate Debtor. The Applicant inter alia seeks the following prayers:

“(1) Pass an order allowing the present application and direct the Respondent to correctly admit the claim of the Applicants for the Possession of their Unit; and;

(2) Pass an order allowing the present application and direct the Respondent to issue the offer of profession to the applicants for their unit KGT0031901 in Jaypee Knights Court, Tower No. 3; and /or;

(3) Pass any other order(s) and direction(s), that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts as submitted by the Applicants are as follows:

a. The Applicants submit that they had applied for booking and allotment of a residential flat bearing Unit No. KGT0031901 with the Corporate Debtor, in the project named “Knights Court” situated at Jaypee Greens Wish Town. It is stated that, as per the Provisional Allotment Letter dated 10.02.2012, the said unit was to be delivered within a period of 36 months. The Applicants further submit that, towards the said unit, they had paid a sum of Rs. 1,36,89,489/- out of the total consideration amounting to Rs. 1,44,35,240/- by 22.04.2013.

b. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to hand over possession of the said unit within the timeline stipulated in the allotment letter. Consequently, the Applicants approached the UP RERA by filing a complaint. Vide order dated 29.01.2021, the Corporate Debtor was directed to hand over possession within a period of 15 months. However, upon failure to comply with the said direction, the UP RERA, vide order dated 19.04.2022, directed the Corporate Debtor to refund the entire amount paid by the Applicants along with interest at the rate of MCLR + 1% from the respective dates of payment. Thereafter, a Recovery Certificate dated 19.01.2023 was issued by UP RERA against the Corporate Debtor, wherein the amount due and payable was determined to be Rs. 2,57,64,887/-.

c. Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor assured the Applicants that, notwithstanding the refund order passed by UP RERA, possession of the flats would be handed over to the homebuyers once the units were ready. It is stated that, based on such assurance, the Corporate Debtor also collected the balance consideration amounting to Rs. 12,83,882/- from the Applicants on 17.03.2023 and 06.09.2023.

However, despite the same, the Corporate Debtor neither handed over possession of the unit nor complied with the refund order passed by UP RERA.

d. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) vide order dated 03.06.2024. Pursuant to the Public Announcement dated 06.06.2024, the Applicants filed their claim as Financial Creditors in a class in Form CA dated 15.06.2024, seeking possession of the said unit. However, it is stated that the said claim is still pending consideration, as reflected on the website.

e. Eventually, the Applicant received the minutes of the 3rd, 4th and 5th meetings of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). As recorded in the minutes of the 3rd CoC meeting dated 30.08.2024, allot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top