Issues: Whether the delay of 166 days in re-filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed within limitation, but the defects were not cured within the time prescribed under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The explanation offered for the re-filing delay was the non-availability of typed pages and the appellant company's authorised representative undergoing treatment. The Court found that no cause, much less sufficient cause, had been shown to justify the delay.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of re-filing delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the interim stay on the corporate insolvency resolution process should be continued in view of the subsequent setting aside of the ex parte DRT order and closure of the recovery certificate, and whether the NCLAT should be directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

Analysis: The order records that the ex parte DRT order dated 12.04.2022 had been recalled and the recovery certificate had been closed, a fact not placed before the Tribunal below. In light of this subsequent development, the interim protection already granted was continued and the NCLAT was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal after permitting both sides to place the updated facts and additional documents on record. The order expressly states that no opinion was expressed on the merits.

Conclusion: The interim arrangement was continued and the appeal before the NCLAT was to be decided afresh on the basis of the updated record.

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the Section 9 insolvency application as time-barred could stand when the record showed part payments, a running ledger account, and a confirmation of accounts, and whether the matter required fresh consideration by the appellate tribunal.

Analysis: The notice under Section 8 and the petition under Section 9 referred not only to the stated default date but also to continued part payments, the last payment date, and a confirmation of account within the relevant period. The running ledger account and confirmation letter were part of the record, yet they were not considered while deciding limitation. Since these documents were material to the question whether the claim was barred by limitation, their non-consideration affected the correctness of the decision.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter had to be considered afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: When material documents showing part payments, ledger entries, or confirmation of account bear on limitation, they must be considered before rejecting an insolvency application as time-barred.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment was not interfered with.

Outcome: The appeal was disposed of with no interference in the impugned judgment and order, and the appellant was granted time to vacate the premises.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the impugned order of the appellate tribunal when the approval of the resolution plan was not under challenge and the appellant's grievance had been left open for consideration before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The request for condonation of delay was allowed. On merits, the Court noted that the approval of the resolution plan was not in question. It further noted that the appellate tribunal had expressly left open the appellant's grievance regarding payment of a lesser amount than claimed, to be pursued in the pending proceedings before the adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, no error in the impugned order was found.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the appeal failed.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order was not interfered with.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed as barred by delay, as the delay exceeded the condonable period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issues: Whether the directions bringing in NBCC to complete the pending housing and integrated non-residential projects, together with the connected supervisory and ancillary directions, required interference.

Analysis: The appeals arose from an insolvency-related order intended to secure completion of long-pending real estate projects and protect homebuyers who had waited for possession for years. The Court held that the competing claims of creditors and land authorities were, for the time being, secondary to completion and delivery of predominantly completed residential units with basic amenities. It found that the NCLAT's decision to involve NBCC as an implementing agency was neither unfair nor contrary to any express provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court further approved the continuing supervisory structure, including the Apex Committee mechanism, and relied on the equitable reach of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to sustain the practical directions in the peculiar facts of the case. The directions concerning project implementation, completion timelines, and compliance by statutory authorities were also affirmed, while NBCC was given liberty to seek clarification on particular conditions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the NCLAT's core directions failed, and the appeals were dismissed; the impugned order was upheld except to the limited extent modified or clarified by the Court.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed and no interference was made with the impugned order.

Issues: Whether the consent terms embodying the Settlement Agreement dated 24.12.2025 should be recorded and the Civil Appeal disposed of in terms of the Settlement Agreement under the Court's power including directions under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The parties completed mediation before a Court-appointed mediator and presented a comprehensive Settlement Agreement and joint application seeking recording of the settlement and directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Settlement Agreement sets out mutual releases, specified payment instalments, security and escrow arrangements, allocation of liabilities, reciprocal undertakings, and provision that the Settlement Agreement be filed as consent terms and be enforceable as a decree of the Court. The parties also sought that the consent terms be accepted and taken on record and that the final order be treated as a decree; the mediator's report was taken on record. The Settlement Agreement contains detailed operative obligations, timelines for payment, remedies on default, and mechanisms for registration and transfer of properties, and provides that pending proceedings be disposed of or kept in abeyance as conditioned by payment milestones.

Conclusion: Consent terms embodied in the Settlement Agreement dated 24.12.2025 are accepted and taken on record; the Settlement Agreement shall be kept with the case records and the Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of those consent terms, with directions to draw a decree in accordance with the settlement and the settlement to operate as a decree of the Court.

Issues: (i) Whether Civil Appeal Diary No. 59982/2024 is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed for delay; (ii) Whether Civil Appeal Diary No. 15943/2024 filed in the name of Jaiprakash Associates Limited while CIRP is pending without amendment of cause title can be entertained; (iii) Whether pending appeals/applications concerning acceptance of refund by home buyers and related intervention applications should be adjudicated given the offer by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to refund amounts and the timelines fixed by the Court.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal filed with a delay of 242 days is condonable under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and thus maintainable.

Analysis: Section 62 prescribes a maximum condonable delay of 15 days beyond the stipulated limitation period of 45 days for filing appeals under the Code. The appeal in question was filed 242 days late, exceeding the statutory maximum condonable period. The Court applied the statutory limitation framework to the facts of the filing delay.

Conclusion: The appeal is time-barred and dismissed for delay.

Issue (ii): Whether an appeal filed in the name of Jaiprakash Associates Limited represented by its erstwhile management can be entertained after CIRP has been initiated against that company without amendment to bring the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional on record.

Analysis: The appellant remained represented by the erstwhile management while CIRP had been initiated against the company; no steps were taken to amend the cause title to reflect the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional. The procedural requirement to have the appropriate corporate representative on record was applied to determine maintainability.

Conclusion: The appeal filed in the name of the erstwhile management is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Issue (iii): Whether pending appeals and miscellaneous/intervention applications by home buyers should be adjudicated when the SRA has offered refunds within Court-fixed timelines and has published notices setting cut-off dates.

Analysis: The SRA made a recorded offer to permit home buyers who complied with the Court-fixed timelines to choose refund or allotment in specified earlier proceedings, and later agreed to refund amounts to certain late claimants within an extended cut-off. The Court considered the published notices, the timeline extensions, and that many applications were filed after earlier disposal; applications by third parties in disposed matters were treated as not maintainable. The Court also specified that claimants who submitted belated claims within the extended cut-off would be entitled only to refunds and not to late allotment claims.

Conclusion: Appeals and applications are dismissed as disposed of or not maintainable, subject to the SRA's recorded offer to refund amounts to eligible home buyers who submitted claims within the Court-fixed cut-off; such eligible claimants are entitled only to refunds and not to allotment.

Final Conclusion: The Court dismissed the specified appeals and applications on the stated procedural and limitation grounds while recording and enforcing the SRA's offer to refund amounts to qualifying home buyers within the timelines fixed by the Court; the substantive approval of the resolution plan stands affirmed by the dismissal of these challenges.

Ratio Decidendi: Appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed beyond the statutory maximum condonable period provided in Section 62 are time-barred and liable to be dismissed; appeals filed in the name of a corporate debtor during CIRP must be prosecuted by the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional to be maintainable.

Issues: Whether the appeal should be disposed with directions to the National Company Law Tribunal to proceed with and decide Company Petition No. 47 of 2016 on merits within a specified time and whether the Tribunal should be directed not to be influenced by observations of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal; and how interim applications for amendment should be treated.

Analysis: The Court recorded that parties attempted but failed to arrive at an amicable settlement. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the relations between the parties, the Court directed that the appeal be disposed by remitting the matter to the NCLT to hear and decide Company Petition No. 47 of 2016 on its own merits within three months. The Court expressly clarified that the NCLT must decide the petition without being influenced by any observations made by the NCLAT in the impugned order. The Court also noted that any interim applications seeking amendment, if filed, are to be considered and decided by the NCLT in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The appeal is disposed by directing the NCLT to proceed with and decide Company Petition No. 47 of 2016 on merits within three months from the date of the order; the NCLT shall not be influenced by observations of the NCLAT; and any interim applications for amendment shall be decided by the NCLT in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the order of the President of the National Company Law Tribunal rejecting the transfer application calling for transfer of the pending company matters from the Amravati Bench to the Hyderabad Bench required interference.

Analysis: The transfer request was founded on the allegation that, during subsequent hearing, a member of the Tribunal had indicated that the interim stay order might be vacated. Such a basis was found insufficient to justify transfer of proceedings. The reasoning treats the application as lacking a legitimate foundation and characterises it as an attempt to browbeat the Tribunal. On that footing, the President of the National Company Law Tribunal was justified in treating the transfer request as liable to be dismissed, even if on a different ground.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the order rejecting the transfer application; the challenge failed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, in the peculiar facts and competing stakeholder interests arising from a real estate insolvency, the Court should exercise its power under Article 142 to craft a court-monitored resolution mechanism overriding the ordinary CIRP architecture.

(ii) Whether the existing CIRP structures-namely the Interim Resolution Professional, the Committee of Creditors, and the suspended Board-should be discharged and replaced by a Court-appointed empowered Committee to oversee resolution and function as the Board of Directors.

(iii) What binding project-continuation and stakeholder-balancing directions are necessary to safeguard home buyers and ensure completion of the project, including treatment of development authority approvals, handling of receivables through escrow, restriction on coercive recovery during a "zero period", appointment of a new developer, and ordering of a forensic audit.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Exercise of Article 142 to institute a court-monitored resolution framework

Legal framework: The Court expressly invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to "do complete justice," in light of the complexity of competing claims among stakeholders in a mixed-use real estate project admitted to CIRP.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found a broad and consistent stakeholder confidence in a court-monitored resolution, and accepted the amicus' recommendation for a Court-appointed Committee to ensure continuity of the resolution process with judicial oversight and adherence to IBC objectives, particularly equity among stakeholders and safeguarding home buyers. The Court also noted, on the material before it, that lenders had long-standing exposure and failed to intervene or restructure despite early distress signals; this inaction substantially contributed to insolvency, thereby weakening any asserted primacy over home buyer interests in the present balancing exercise.

Conclusion: The Court held this to be a fit case for Article 142 intervention and proceeded to issue intensive directions establishing a court-supervised mechanism to run the resolution and complete the project while protecting home buyers.

Issue (ii): Discharge of IRP/CoC/suspended Board and substitution by a Court-appointed empowered Committee

Interpretation and reasoning: To secure continuity, avoid fragmented primacy claims, and ensure effective project implementation, the Court replaced the ordinary governance and control arrangement under the ongoing CIRP. The Court determined that resolution should be overseen by an empowered Committee that would also discharge the functions of the Board of Directors, with authority to take operational decisions, appoint an implementer, and if needed reconstitute itself by adding members. The Court also limited the role of the suspended management to technical cooperation, and required the discharged IRP to assist the Committee when required.

Conclusion: The Court ordered that the Interim Resolution Professional, the Committee of Creditors, and the suspended Board "stand discharged," and that a Court-appointed three-member Committee would immediately come into force replacing them, functioning as the Board and exercising final, binding decision-making power.

Issue (iii): Binding directions to complete the project and balance stakeholder interests (home buyers, lenders, development authority and others)

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered completion of the project and protection of home buyers as central to "complete justice," and therefore structured binding directions controlling governance, funding flows, approvals, and recovery actions. It required that a new developer be appointed through proposals and vetting based on timebound delivery, track record, experience, and financial viability, while barring any developer associated with or related to the corporate debtor or erstwhile management. To prevent diversion and prioritize construction, the Court mandated that receivables, unsold inventory proceeds, and fresh buyer collections be deposited into an escrow account and used for construction purposes only. The Court also ensured administrative facilitation by directing development authorities to process approvals and licenses expeditiously without demanding prior dues clearance, including registration of sub-lease deeds for remaining apartments where full payment is made. To protect home buyers during completion, the Court created a "zero period" during which no payments would be made to the development authority or financial lenders until completion and handing over, and restrained coercive action against home buyers who have paid consideration. The Court further directed a forensic audit of the corporate debtor and its parent company to examine accounts, and empowered the Committee to seek directions from the Court and assistance of the amicus as required.

Conclusions: The Court conclusively ordered: (a) appointment of a new developer through a vetted process with exclusion of related parties; (b) escrow-based ring-fencing of funds strictly for construction; (c) expeditious approvals and registrations by development authorities without insistence on clearing past dues as a condition; (d) a binding "zero period" deferring payments to the development authority and lenders until completion/handing over, with a bar on coercive actions against fully-paid home buyers, and post-completion use of any surplus to satisfy those dues; (e) a forensic audit of accounts of the corporate debtor and its parent company; and (f) stakeholder consultation with final, binding authority vested in the Committee.