Continuation of reverse CIRP for a completed real-estate project with all homebuyer claims settled was closed

Whether continuation of a court-monitored CIRP/reverse CIRP was warranted after completion of the real-estate project and redressal of all homebuyer claims was the dominant issue. The NCLAT held that, since construction had been completed pursuant to an earlier order and possession was being handed over to all claimant homebuyers, no claimant survived and nothing remained to be adjudicated; therefore, continuation of CIRP served no insolvency purpose. Consequently, the CIRP of the corporate debtor was directed to be closed, the resolution professional was discharged, and the impugned order was set aside; the appeal was disposed of.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, after completion of the real estate project under the Tribunal's "court monitored CIRP"/"reverse CIRP" directions and satisfaction of homebuyer claims, the insolvency process should be closed and the admission order set aside.

(ii) Whether closure of the insolvency process required a separate application for withdrawal/closure, or could be ordered by the Tribunal in the absence of surviving creditor claims.

(iii) Whether the outstanding tax authority claim constituted an impediment to closing the insolvency process, and the effect of closure on that disputed claim.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(i) Closure of insolvency proceedings after completion of construction and satisfaction of homebuyer claims

Legal framework: The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of its earlier direction permitting continuation of construction in terms of the development arrangement, effectively monitoring completion to enable handing over of possession to flat owners.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that, pursuant to its earlier directions permitting the developer to proceed with construction, the project stood completed and occupation certificates were obtained. The Tribunal relied on the Local Commissioner's report as confirming completion and recording that remaining fittings would be installed as occupants came forward upon making balance payments. The Tribunal further considered the updated position that possession had been handed over and that the homebuyer-related claims identified by the Resolution Professional had been satisfied through possession/settlement/transfer of units.

Conclusion: Since the construction was complete and possession was being handed over, and there was "no claimant left", the Tribunal held that there was no impediment to closing the insolvency process, set aside the admission order, closed the CIRP, and discharged the Resolution Professional.

(ii) Necessity of a separate withdrawal/closure application versus Tribunal's power to close proceedings when no claims survive

Legal framework: The Tribunal applied its own prior decisions recognising that, where there are no creditors other than the initiating financial creditor and settlement/closure is evident, insisting on a formal withdrawal application may be unnecessary and closure can be ordered in appropriate cases.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered the Resolution Professional's affidavit identifying pending claims and the subsequent material demonstrating satisfaction of those claims. It also recorded submissions that any alleged claims for interest/compensation could be pursued independently, with the corporate debtor contesting as per law if required. In these circumstances, the Tribunal treated continuation of CIRP as unwarranted once no creditor claim requiring insolvency resolution remained.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that, given satisfaction of claims and absence of surviving creditors, the CIRP could be closed and the admission order set aside without treating a separate withdrawal mechanism as a necessary precondition on the facts before it.

(iii) Effect of a disputed tax authority claim on closure of CIRP

Legal framework: The Tribunal acted on the recorded stand of the tax authority's counsel and the undertaking/statement that closure of CIRP would not extinguish the disputed tax claim and that it would be dealt with in accordance with law outside the insolvency process.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the tax authority confirmed it had no objection to closure of CIRP provided the underlying dispute was not extinguished, and also noted the stay of demand and deposit made for such stay. The Tribunal accepted the position that post-closure, the tax dispute would continue to be governed by the applicable legal process.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the disputed tax claim did not bar closure of CIRP, expressly proceeding on the basis that closure would not extinguish the tax claim and it would be addressed as per final adjudication in accordance with law.

(Ancillary determination) The Tribunal disposed of the contempt proceedings because they were not pressed, and closed all pending applications.

---