Operational debt under insolvency law requires a money claim; non-allotment of barter units is insufficient.

Locus under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was recognised for both the real estate regulator and the welfare society because each was directly affected by the admission order and represented affected allottees. On the insolvency issue, the text states that a barter arrangement for advertising services, with units promised as the barter component, did not create operational debt when the grievance was only non-allotment of units. Sections 8 and 9 apply only where there is an unpaid operational debt giving rise to a legally enforceable right to payment in money, so a claim limited to transfer of units cannot sustain a demand notice or insolvency application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Real Estate Regulatory Authority had locus to file the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) whether the Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society had locus to file the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (iii) whether non-discharge of the barter component under the barter agreements created an operational debt enabling initiation of proceedings under Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the Real Estate Regulatory Authority had locus to file the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The Authority is a statutory body entrusted with protecting the interests of allottees and regulating real estate projects. The appeal challenged not merely the moratorium as a consequence of admission, but the very maintainability of the Section 9 proceedings and alleged collusion between the parties. In that setting, the Authority was directly affected by the continuation of corporate insolvency proceedings and the resulting impact on actions already taken under the real estate law.

Conclusion: The Real Estate Regulatory Authority had locus to file the appeal and was a person aggrieved.

Issue (ii): Whether the Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society had locus to file the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The Society represented homebuyers of the real estate project and had already pursued consumer proceedings concerning refund and interest. The impugned admission order affected the claims and remedies of the homebuyers whom the Society represented. It was therefore not a remote or abstract objector but an affected association of allottees with a direct grievance against the admission order.

Conclusion: The Aquacity Consumer and Societies Welfare Society had locus to file the appeal and was a person aggrieved.

Issue (iii): Whether non-discharge of the barter component under the barter agreements created an operational debt enabling initiation of proceedings under Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The agreements were framed as barter arrangements under which the operational creditor was to provide advertising services and, in return, receive a cash component and allotment or transfer of units as the barter component. The pleaded default related to non-handover of units, not to non-payment of a monetary liability arising from services. For a claim to qualify as operational debt, it must be a claim in respect of goods or services that gives rise to a right to payment. A right to obtain allotment of units under a barter arrangement is not the same as a right to recover money. The Court treated the statutory scheme of Sections 8 and 9 as requiring unpaid operational debt in money terms before a demand notice and insolvency application can lie.

Conclusion: Non-discharge of the barter component did not create operational debt, and the Section 9 application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The admission order was unsustainable and was set aside, with both appeals allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim arising only from non-allotment or non-transfer of units under a barter arrangement does not amount to operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because Sections 8 and 9 are attracted only where there is a legally enforceable right to payment in money.

---