ORDER

[PER: K. R. SAJI KUMAR, MEMBER (J)]

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code/IBC) read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking, inter alia, dismissal of IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 73/MB/2025, filed for approval of the Resolution Plan; direction to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to reconsider the Resolution Plan of the Prospective Resolution Applicants, which is allegedly not compliant with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA); and in the alternative, direction to the Resolution Applicant to modify/amend the Resolution Plan demonstrating full compliance with the RERA.

1.2. The Applicants are homebuyers who had booked Flat Nos. F-1606 and F-1005 respectively in the project ‘Altavista’, which was being developed by Spenta Enclave Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor (CD). It is submitted that substantial amounts aggregating approximately Rs.89.23 Lakh and Rs.86.71 Lakh, respectively, were paid towards the purchase consideration of the Flats between 2017-2021, by the Applicants but the CD failed to hand over possession of the Flats as agreed.

1.3. The Applicants submit that despite assurances regarding completion of the project by 31.12.2019, it was subsequently revised to 31.12.2020, and the CD failed to complete the project. Consequently, the Applicants sought refund of the amounts paid and initiated proceedings before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in July,2022, prior to the commencement of the CIRP.

1.4. The CIRP in respect of the CD was initiated vide order dated 24.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal. Pursuant thereto, the Applicants submitted their claims as homebuyers, which were admitted by Respondent No. 1, the Resolution Professional (RP). However, the RP, by email dated 01.08.2023, asked the Applicants to pay the balance consideration towards the Flats on account of the project being taken up for completion. The Applicants, however, informed the RP that they are not inclined to pay the balance consideration and thus informed him, by email, of their refusal to sign consent letter for payment of the balance consideration.

1.5. During the CIRP, a Resolution Plan submitted by a Consortium of Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), which was approved by the CoC. The present Applicants challenge the said Resolution Plan, primarily on the ground that the Plan does not provide an exit option or refund mechanism to homebuyers who desire to withdraw from the project, despite the rights already available to them under Section 18 of RERA.

2. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANTS

2.1. The Applicants submit that the CD failed to deliver possession of the Flats within the timelines stipulated under the Agreements for Sale dated 19.8.2017 & 16.10.2017, executed by the Applicants with the CD. The Agreement for Sale provided, in Clause 18, that the CD shall give possession of the Flats on or before 30.12.2020, and if they failed to do so, the promoters would be liable to refund to the Applicants the amounts already received with interest. Since the CD failed to deliver the Flats within the agreed timeframe, they are entitled to seek refund of the amounts paid under Section 18 of RERA, which provides for return of amount and compensation in respect of the Flats. The Applicants sought refund of the amounts paid and initiated proceedings before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in July, 2022, even prior to the commencement of the CIRP. Now that the CD is in CIRP and that a Plan of the SRA has been approved by the CoC, the SRA would step into the shoes of the promoter/developer, and would therefore be bound by all the obligations of the promoter arising under RERA as well as the Agreements for Sale executed with the homebuyers. The Applicants submit that, to their disappointment, the approved Resolution Plan expressly stipulates that cancellation of unit