Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1181
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Praveen Gupta, Member (Judicial), Ashish Verma, Member (Technical)
ATUL SOOD – Appellant
Versus
MR. BHUVAN MADAN (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL) – Respondent
Application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Sh. Tanmay Sadh, Adv. : For the Applicant
Sh. Anoop Rawat with Sh. Sagar Dhawan, Advs. : For the Res./ RP
Sh. Vaijayant Paliwal, Sh. Aditya Marwah, Sh. Nikhil Mathur, Sh. Ahkam Khan, Sh. Udbhav Nanda, Ms. Kirti Gupta, Ms. Varnika Taya, Ms. Rashi Sharma, Ms. Diksha Sharma, Ms. Ananya Khanna, Ms. Aditi Rathore, Ms. Shreya Gupta, Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, Advs.
The court emphasized that acceptance of possession by homebuyers limits the scope for contesting the terms of such acceptance in insolvency proceedings under the Code.
Headnote:{ - Statute Analysis: This application is governed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, with rules under the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. - Facts: The applicants, homebuyers of the project “Knight’s Court”, contend against the process note issued during the Corporate Debtor's insolvency resolution proceedings, claiming it contravenes legal agreements regarding possession and compensation for delays. - Findings: The court noted that the applicants accepted possession under the terms of the process note and held the grievances related to contractual arrangements, beyond its jurisdiction under the Code. -
Issues: The court analyzed the legality of the process note, related fees, and terms of possession acceptance. -
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the applicants accepted possession, their grievances concerning the process note did not warrant intervention under the Code as adjudication of contractual disagreements fell outside its remit. -
Result: The application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial facts regarding applicants and project. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. project completion timelines and agreements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. regulatory authority involvement and decisions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. response by the resolution professional to applicants' claims. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. court's observations on process note and acceptance. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and dismissed claims. (Para 28 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
ORDER
1. The instant Application has been filed by Applicants, who are homebuyers/allottees of residential apartments in the project “Knight’s Court” situated at J.P. Greens, Sector-128, Noida, developed by the Corporate Debtor, M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL). (hereinafter referred as “Applicants”) on 16.08.2025 under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”) read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking inter alia the following prayers:
a. To allow the present Application;
b. To Declare the Process Note issued by the RP for handing over possession as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Conciliation Agreement, Legal Rights Protection Agreement and the Order under Section 8 of the RERA Act passed by UP RERA;
c. To Declare the Affidavits/Undertakings taken from the Applicants by the RP, waiving their rights to claim delay penalties under RERA, as null, void and illegal, having been obtained under coercion and in violation of statutory protections;
d. To Direct the RP to complete the projects strictly in accordance with the Conciliation Agreements, Legal Rights Protection Agreements and the Orders passed by UP RERA as per original specifications or compensate adequately for similar specifications;
e. To Direct the Respondent to immediately provide the basis of calculating the illegal scope discounts provided to the Applicants as against the handing over possession of unfinished apartments to the Applicants;
f. To Direct the Respondent to refund the entire amount as charged by Respondent from the Applicants at the time of Offer for Possession, being contrary to the terms and conditions of the Conciliation Agreement, Legal Rights Protection Agreement and the Order of RERA passed under Section 8 of the RERA Act; due to following:
A) Additional Area:
B) Farmer's compensation since letter from JAL claims it is disputed and would be settled by JAL
C) Award the non-cash outflow items as per the Conciliation Agreement to the Applicants against the delay compensation viz.
D) 2nd or additional car parks as the case maybe as per requirement of the applicant
E) Golf and Boomerang Club membership as per requirement of the applicant (s)
g. Direct the Respondent to refund the interest of Rs.
3,46,796.28/- illegally charged from the Applicant No. 1 and
2 on the outstanding dues;
h. Declare the impugned action of the Respondent in charging exorbitant amount for second car parking from the Applicants as illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the Conciliation Agreement and consequently direct the Respondent to provide second car parking to the Applicants against the delay compensation without charging any additional amount;
i. Direct the Respondent to Adjust 2-year maintenance deposit against the delay compensation as per Conciliation agreement j. To Direct the RP to admit the updated claim amounts of the Applicants as sent by the Applicants to the Respondent;
k. To Direct the Respondent and declare that the maintenance payable by the Applicants shall start after 1 year from the handing over possession of their respective apartments;
l. To Direct the Respondent to pay cost of litigation to the Applicants;
m. Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased in the interest of justice.
2. The Corporate Debtor launched the aforesaid residential project in the year 2010 comprising multiple residential towers. Pursuant thereto, the Applicants were allotted residential units in t
