Unified project-completion under NBCC approved, with statutory compliance preserved and homebuyers shielded from extra cost burden.

A unified project-completion model under NBCC was accepted for the stalled real estate projects because it best served viability, execution control, and stakeholder interests, while Doon Square remained outside the package. The Tribunal approved the proposed timelines and directed fixed milestones for approvals, work awards, and commencement, but refused any exemption from RERA and building-law compliances. Existing homebuyers were protected from cost escalation beyond contractual dues. Governance measures, including project-wise committees, separate accounts, monitored funding, and stakeholder supervision, were approved to secure completion and transparency.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether NBCC's application to take over and complete the corporate debtor's projects, excluding Doon Square, should be allowed; (ii) whether all sixteen projects should be entrusted to NBCC instead of diverting certain cash-surplus projects to co-developers; (iii) whether the timelines proposed by NBCC for construction and completion should be approved; (iv) whether NBCC can be granted exemption from statutory compliances under RERA and building regulations; (v) whether existing homebuyers can be subjected to escalation of cost beyond their contractual dues; (vi) what governance, funding, and stakeholder-monitoring directions should be issued for completion of the projects.

Issue (i): Whether NBCC's application to take over and complete the corporate debtor's projects, excluding Doon Square, should be allowed.

Analysis: The projects had remained stalled for years, the revised proposal showed a workable project-wise completion model, and the proposal was supported by a substantial segment of stakeholders subject to safeguards. The project before the Tribunal was distinguishable from a mere liquidation-style transfer because the objective was completion of construction as a going concern, with supervision by institutional committees and oversight of the insolvency professional. Doon Square had already been separately dealt with and therefore stood outside the package for present consideration.

Conclusion: The application was allowed for the remaining sixteen projects, excluding Doon Square.

Issue (ii): Whether all sixteen projects should be entrusted to NBCC instead of diverting certain cash-surplus projects to co-developers.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the projects were interlinked financially and operationally. Excluding cash-surplus projects would undermine the viability of completing the entire set of projects and would impair the uniformity of execution and quality control. The proposal to fragment the projects among different developers was found less suitable than a single coordinated execution structure under NBCC.

Conclusion: All sixteen projects were directed to be taken over by NBCC, and the request to hand over five projects to co-developers was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the timelines proposed by NBCC for construction and completion should be approved.

Analysis: NBCC's revised proposal clarified that the timelines applied to simultaneous completion of the projects, and the uncertainty surrounding the start date was addressed by fixing specific pre-commencement milestones. Directions were required to ensure that approvals, funding, and award of work moved within a defined schedule so that the project commencement date became certain and enforceable.

Conclusion: The proposed timelines were approved, with consequential directions fixing milestones for approvals, award of work, and commencement of construction.

Issue (iv): Whether NBCC can be granted exemption from statutory compliances under RERA and building regulations.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that project completion must occur within the governing statutory framework. The public authorities concerned were required to act with urgency, but that urgency did not justify dispensing with statutory approvals or RERA obligations. The proposal for waiver of legal compliances was therefore inconsistent with the statutory regime and with the obligations of the project authorities.

Conclusion: No exemption from statutory compliances was granted.

Issue (v): Whether existing homebuyers can be subjected to escalation of cost beyond their contractual dues.

Analysis: The Tribunal recognised that the delay in completion was attributable to the corporate debtor and that the burden of revival could not be shifted onto existing allottees beyond their contractual obligations. While the projects needed enhanced funding for completion, the homebuyers who had subsisting allotments could not be asked to bear additional escalation merely because the construction had been delayed.

Conclusion: Existing homebuyers were protected against cost escalation, except for dues payable under the builder buyer agreements.

Issue (vi): What governance, funding, and stakeholder-monitoring directions should be issued for completion of the projects.

Analysis: The Tribunal approved a dual-committee framework consisting of an Apex Court Committee and project-wise Court Committees to supervise funding, approvals, construction, and stakeholder interests. It also rejected a model where land authorities and lenders would be paid only from residual surplus after completion, and instead provided for phased repayment during implementation. Separate project accounts, a dedicated NBCC project account, stakeholder participation, and monitored use of receivables were directed to ensure transparency and progress.

Conclusion: The committee structure, funding mechanism, project accounts, stakeholder directions, and related supervisory measures were approved with modifications.

Final Conclusion: The revised NBCC proposal was accepted as the framework for completing the stalled projects, subject to statutory compliance, committee supervision, controlled use of project funds, and protection of existing homebuyers from additional financial burden.

Ratio Decidendi: In a project-completion insolvency framework, a tribunal may approve a unified completion model under a project management consultant where it best serves viability and stakeholder interests, but statutory compliances cannot be waived and existing allottees cannot be saddled with additional cost beyond their contractual dues.

---