NBCC-led project completion directions sustained to secure stalled housing delivery and protect homebuyers' possession rights.

Directions to use NBCC as implementing agency for stalled housing and integrated non-residential projects were sustained because completion and delivery of predominantly finished units with basic amenities took priority over competing creditor and land authority claims. The Court found the NCLAT's supervisory and ancillary directions, including the Apex Committee mechanism, consistent with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and supported by Article 142 to meet the peculiar facts. Project implementation timelines and compliance directions to statutory authorities were also affirmed, with limited clarification permitted for NBCC. The core challenge failed and the impugned order was upheld, subject only to minor modification and clarification.

---

---

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.

---