Updates – News & Events

Status update – 6th July, 2021
1All Meeting related Documents
1Home Buyers Claim List as on 31st March, 2021
1Final List of Prospective Resolution Applicants
1Details of Statutory Claims- March, 2021
2Claim from Operational Creditors – March, 2021
3Claims completely rejected
4Claim Reverification
Process followed in Verification of Claims
Home buyer’s Claim list as on 19th Feb, 2021
5Joint Communication from RP and AR to Home Buyers dated 21st January 2021
Click here to download
6Note on Verification Process of Claims for Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd.
Click here to download
5Court: NCLAT
Case Name: Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills-77, Gurgaon v. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd.  [CA(AT)(Ins) No. 926/2019]
Case Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163869853/
Key Take-Aways: CIRP against real estate CD projects specific. It is limited to a project as per the plan approved by the competent authority and does not cover other projects which are separate at other places for which separate plans have been approved.

The NCLAT noted peculiar nature of real estate projects from the perspective of CIRP that: (a) FCs (Banks/ Financial Institutions/ NBFCs) would not like to take the flats in lieu of the money disbursed by them; (b) CoC cannot adopt ‘haircut’ in claims of the allottees as there cannot be a haircut of flats, and (c) the allottees do not have the expertise to assess ‘viability’ or ‘feasibility’ of a CD or commercial wisdom as other FCs.
Relying on the observations of the SC in Essar Steel, about experimentation in economic matters, the NCLAT experimented as to whether during the CIRP, the resolution can reach finality without the approval of the third-party resolution plan. It opined that a ‘Reverse CIRP’ can be utilised in cases of real estate infrastructure companies in the interest of allottees and to ensure their survival and completion of the projects.(In this case, one of the ex-promoters offered to infuse a sum of money not as a promotor but as a creditor. This move would run the project, provide the flats to the homebuyers on time, and also settle the claims of other creditors. The Court allowed this proposal by bringing in the concept of Reverse CIRP, wherein, third party resolution plan would not be needed in certain cases of real estate companies in the interest of the allottees and survival of the companies and to ensure completion of projects)

6Court: NCLAT
Case Name: Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No.43/2019]
Case Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118478827/
Key Take-Aways: Considering the amount invested by the promoter and status of the project,  the NCLAT in exercise of  its ‘Inherent powers’ under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, allowed the promoter of the corporate debtor under CIRP to reinvest in the corporate debtor’s real estate projects as a ‘Financial creditor’. It further held that if the projects are completed, creditors are paid back and if a completion certificate is received from the Interim Resolution Professional and other conditions are fulfilled, the CIRP process would be closed and the unsold flats and apartments would be handed over to the promoter.

(The Court applied the ratio of Flat Buyers association case)

7Court: NCLAT
Case Name: Rajesh Goyal .v. Babita Gupta 193(IBC)157/2020
Case Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34130871/

Key Take-Aways:In real estate projects, money is raised from the allottees, against consideration for the time value of money. The amounts raised from allottees is subsumed within section 5(8)(f) even without adverting to the explanation introduced by the Amendment Act. The allottees/home buyers were included in the main provision, i.e., section 5(8)(f) with effect from the inception of the Code. The explanation was added in 2018 merely to clarify doubts that had arisen.

The provisions of RERA are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. Further, Parliament was aware of RERA when it added explanation to section 5(8)(f) of the Code which came into force on 6 June 2018. Therefore, the Code as amended, must be given precedence over RERA. Even by a process of harmonious construction, RERA and the Code must be held to co-exist, and, in the event of a clash, RERA must give way to the Code.
The Code and RERA operate in completely different spheres. The Code deals with a proceeding in rem in which the focus is the rehabilitation of the CD by means of a resolution plan, so that the CD may be pulled out of the woods and may continue as a going concern, thus benefitting all stakeholders involved. On the other hand, RERA protects the interests of the individual investor in real estate projects by requiring the promoter to strictly adhere to its provisions.
The remedies under RERA to allottees are additional and not exclusive remedies. The allottees have concurrent remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA as well as IBC.

8Court: NCLAT
Case Name: Navin Raheja vs Shilpa Jain and Others [CA (AT) (IBC) No. 864/2019
Case Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34130871/
Key Take-Aways:
If the delay in possession of real estate is not due to the Corporate Debtor but force majeure, it cannot be alleged that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in delivering the possession
9Court: NCLAT
Case Name: Parvesh Magoo vs Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd [CA (AT) (IBC) No. 1141/2019)
Case Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192653375/
Key Take-Aways:
Adjudicating Authority has to see whether the delay is due to the Corporate Debtor and in case the delay is not due to the Corporate Debtor, but force majeure as noticed above, it cannot be alleged that the Corporate Debtor defaulted in delivering the possession.
10Court: Delhi HC
Case Name: M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dr Dinesh Sharma and Anr
Case Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138563482/
Key Take-Aways:
Several real estate companies moved the HC against an order passed by the NCDRC on whether proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act can be commenced by homebuyers against developers after the commencement of RERA 2016.

High Court placed reliance on Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure case, wherein it was held that that remedies given to allottees of flats are concurrent and they are in a position to avail remedies under the CPA, RERA as well trigger the IBC. It was observed that the provisions of RERA were not intended to be exclusive, but to run parallel with other remedies.

11Court: Supreme Court
Case Name: Jaiprakash Associates Limited v IDBI Bank 2020 (3) SCC 328
Case Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195489454/
Key Take-Aways:
Homebuyers’ association filed application before NCLT seeking clarification as to the manner in which the voting percentage of allottees would be determined in the CoC. This matter remained pending for quite some time at NCLT and NCLAT, as a result time period of 270 days expired. In such situations when there is lack of clarity in the applicable laws regarding some issue, the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under 142 in limited sense to amend the date from which the calculation of time is to be done. (In present case, 90 days extension u/s 12(3) was modified from date of IBC (Amendment) Act 2019 to the date of this order)

Further, in such situation, a resolution plan rejected by the CoC can be revised and resubmitted for consideration before CoC.