TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 902
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For short, "IBC"], thereby initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [For short, "CIRP"] against the appellant in C.A. No. 10012 of 2025 - Takshashila Heights India Private Limited. The NCLAT further rejected the intervention application filed by the appellant in C.A. No. 10261 of 2025 - Elegna Co-operative Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. [For short, "Society"] on the ground that it lacked locus standi to intervene in the aforesaid company appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeals are arrayed as under: Name of the Party Before NCLT [CP (IB) No. 104(AHM)/2024] Before NCLAT [CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 2261 of 2024] Before this Court [CA No. 10261 of 2025 / CA No. 10012 of 2025] Elegna Cooperative Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. Not a party Intervenor Appellant / - Takshashila Heights India Private Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) Respondent Respondent Respondent No. 2 / Appellant Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (Financial Creditor) Applicant Applicant Respondent No. 1 / Respondent Brief facts 4. The necessary facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are as foll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Creditor filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT, seeking initiation of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. During pendency of the said proceedings, the Financial Creditor issued a sale notice dated 10.04.2024 under Rule 8(6) read with Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 [For short, "Securitisation Rules"] and the notice was published in newspapers on 18.05.2024. 4.5. By a detailed and reasoned order dated 06.11.2024, the NCLT dismissed the Section 7 petition, holding that the facts of the case did not warrant initiation of the CIRP as the IBC was being invoked as a recovery mechanism rather than as a tool for insolvency resolution. The NCLT further noted that the project was viable and substantially complete, and that insolvency proceedings would adversely affect the interests of homebuyers and other stakeholders. 4.6. Challenging the order of the NCLT, the Financial Creditor preferred Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 2261 of 2024 before the NCLAT. The Society filed an intervention application under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, on the ground that the outcome of the appeal would directly affect the proprietary and contrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the same project. The creation of such an artificial distinction between unit holders of completed and uncompleted towers within a single real estate development is arbitrary, lacks intelligible differentia, and bears no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Such sub-classification within a homogeneous class of allotees offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5.4. The learned senior counsel pointed out that upon commencement of CIRP, the contractual right of allottees to seek specific performance of their agreements to sell stands extinguished by virtue of Regulation 4E of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 [For short, "CIRP Regulations"], which mandates that any registration or possession of units shall be subject to the approval of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The NCLAT failed to take this statutory consequence into account. 5.5. It was emphasised by the learned senior counsel that initiation of CIRP suspends the operation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), thereby depriving homebuyers of their statutory remedies under RERA. Simultaneously, their participation before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rejection of the appellant's intervention application, therefore, results in manifest injustice and warrants interference by this Court under Section 62 of the IBC. 5.12. The learned senior counsel submitted that the conduct of the financial creditor in simultaneously pursing CIRP, while also attempting to sell units and recover amounts under the Securitisation Rules, is clearly mala fide and squarely attracts Section 65 of the IBC. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd v. ICICI Bank [(2018) 1 SCC 407], wherein it was held that once an order of admission is passed, the CIRP commences and the moratorium comes into effect, thereby imposing a freeze on, inter alia, the sale or alienation of assets. 5.13. It was further submitted by the learned senior counsel that in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2019) 4 SCC 17], this Court underlined the defining qualities of a financial creditor, who is required to have the long-term interests of the Corporate Debtor at heart and not be merely interested in quick recovery regardless of the future of the Corporate Debtor. Whereas, in the present case, the Respondent - Fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allottees have taken possession, and an amount of Rs. 103 crores has been realised from homebuyers. The remaining unsold inventory constitutes a ready and monetizable asset pool sufficient to discharge all outstanding liabilities. To finance the project, the corporate debtor availed two term loans aggregating to Rs. 70 crores from ECL Finance Limited on 19.07.2018, secured by mortgage of project assets and personal guarantees. Due to Covid-19 disruptions and delays in statutory approvals, repayment timelines were adversely affected, and the accounts were classified as NPA on 30.12.2021. Subsequently, on 31.12.2021 (as amended on 09.05.2022), ECL Finance assigned the debt to EARCL, acting as Trustee of EARC Trust SC 444. EARCL issued a recall notice dated 31.05.2022 demanding Rs. 53.03 crores, followed by a SARFAESI notice dated 21.07.2022 for Rs. 57.24 crores and filed OA No. 367 of 2022 before the DRT, Ahmedabad - clearly reflecting a recovery driven approach. 6.2. The learned senior counsel further submitted that after negotiations, the parties entered into a Restructuring - cum - One Time Settlement (OTS) on 23.05.2023, fixing the liability at Rs. 55 crores (Rs. 39 crores by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BYJU Raveendran [(2024) INSC 811 : (2025) 3 SCC 625], this Court reaffirmed that IBC must not be misused by individual creditors as a tool for coercion or recovery, especially where the corporate debtor is viable and operation. EARCL, being an Asset Reconstruction Company, inherently seeks debt recovery. While such a pursuit is permissible under SARFAESI Act, it cannot justify recourse to IBC when the project is commercially viable, substantially complete, and capable of generating sufficient cash flow. 6.5. It was also submitted by the learned senior counsel that EARCL's own records disclose inconsistent and inflated demand figures. The demand escalation of nearly Rs. 40 crores within 18 months, driven by penal interest and arbitrary charges, is commercially unreasonable and evidences mala fide intent to create a façade of default. 6.6. It was also pointed out that this Court in Vidarbha Industries held that the Adjudicating Authority "may" admit a petition under Section 7, thereby conferring discretion to assess the expedience and necessity of CIRP based on the corporate debtor's financial position and overall circumstances. The NCLT rightly exercised such discretion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpact, committed an error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed that this court may be pleased to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the NCLAT dated 01.07.2025, and restore the reasoned order of the NCLT dated 06.11.2024 dismissing the Section 7 petition. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, EARCL - Financial Creditor made the following submissions: Lack of locus standi of the appellant Society (i) The appellant is merely a maintenance society constituted for upkeep and administration of the project premises and not a representative body formed by allottees for protection of their collective interests. Consequently, it cannot be regarded either as a "financial creditor" under Section 5(7) or as an "operational creditor" under Section 5(20) of the IBC. It therefore lacks locus standi to intervene in or object to proceedings under Section 7 of the Code. (ii) The appellant is not a party to any loan agreements, debenture subscription agreements, or restructuring arrangements executed between Respondent No. 1 and the Corporate Debtor. Any grievance on behalf of homebuyers c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....procedures and cannot be invoked to resist initiation of CIRP. It casts mandatory obligations on the Resolution Professional, upon CoC approval, to deliver possession and facilitate registration of units. This provision strengthens, rather than restricts, the protection available to homebuyers. (vi) Even in liquidation, allottees in possession remain protected, as such units are expressly excluded from the liquidation estate under Regulation 46A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. Further, Pioneer Urban Land affirms the harmonious coexistence of homebuyers' rights under RERA with the IBC framework. (vii) Admission of CIRP does not extinguish the contractual or proprietary rights of allottees. On the contrary, it facilitates project completion, enables infusion of new capital, and maximises value for all stakeholders. Several real estate insolvency cases demonstrate that CIRP has expedited delivery of possession and improved project viability as compared to fragmented individual enforcement or recovery proceedings. (viii) The corporate debtor defaulted on the very second instalment, paying only Rs.86 lakhs against the agreed Rs. 3 crores. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... press for liquidation, rather than undertake the complexities and commercial risks involved in reviving a struggling real estate project. It is at such junctures that this Court must reiterate, and indeed remind, that the fundamental object of the IBC is resolution and revival, and not mere recovery. 10.3. If creditors elect to invoke the provisions of the Code, they must do so with a genuine willingness to pursue revival of the corporate debtor. Should revival not be their objective, the Code cannot be converted into a tool for expedient recovery; alternative statutory remedies, including under SARFAESI or other applicable laws, remain available in accordance with law. 10.4. The interests of homebuyers are undoubtedly of paramount importance. However, such interests must be protected strictly within the legal framework. The resolution mechanism under the IBC contains adequate safeguards for homebuyers, which have been repeatedly strengthened by judicial interpretation. The appropriate course lies in constructive engagement with the Committee of Creditors, with a view to completing the project and advancing the collective good, rather than fragmenting the process through ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timely resolution to preserve enterprise value. 12.5. The reliance placed by the Corporate Debtor on Vidarbha Industries is wholly misconceived. That decision has consistently been recognised as a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts, namely the existence of an adjudicated and realisable claim in favour of the corporate debtor exceeding the debt owed. 12.6. This position now stands authoritatively clarified in M. Suresh Kumar Reddy, wherein this Court held that Vidarbha Industries does not dilute the binding ratio of Innoventive Industries and E.S. Krishnamurthy. Admission under Section 7 thus remains mandatory once debt and default are established, with Vidarbha Industries operating only in exceptional circumstances. 12.7. In any event, the scope of the Adjudicating Authority's powers stands elaborately discussed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Indus Biotech Private Ltd. v. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund and others [(2021) 6 SCC 436]. While recognising that the NCLT is not expected to act mechanically and is empowered to examine the material on record to satisfy itself that a default has in fact occurred, this Court unequivocally held that once the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....meaning of "claim", we have to go back to Section 3(6) which defines "claim" to mean a right to payment even if it is disputed. The Code gets triggered the moment default is of rupees one lakh or more (Section 4). The corporate insolvency resolution process may be triggered by the corporate debtor itself or a financial creditor or operational creditor. A distinction is made by the Code between debts owed to financial creditors and operational creditors. A financial creditor has been defined under Section 5(7) as a person to whom a financial debt is owed and a financial debt is defined in Section 5(8) to mean a debt which is disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. As opposed to this, an operational creditor means a person to whom an operational debt is owed and an operational debt under Section 5(21) means a claim in respect of provision of goods or services. 28. When it comes to a financial creditor triggering the process, Section 7 becomes relevant. Under the Explanation to Section 7(1), a default is in respect of a financial debt owed to any financial creditor of the corporate debtor-it need not be a debt owed to the applicant financial creditor. Und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsection (1), bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceedings, which is pre-existing i.e. before such notice or invoice was received by the corporate debtor. The moment there is existence of such a dispute, the operational creditor gets out of the clutches of the Code. 30. On the other hand, as we have seen, in the case of a corporate debtor who commits a default of a financial debt, the adjudicating authority has merely to see the records of the information utility or other evidence produced by the financial creditor to satisfy itself that a default has occurred. It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is "due" i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise." (emphasis supplied) 16. Dr Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel while seeking to repel the contention put forth on behalf of Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. seeks to emph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 of IB Code is to be followed as provided under sub-section (5)(a); or if there is no default the adjudicating authority shall reject the application as provided under sub-section (5)(b) to Section 7 of IB Code. In that circumstance if the finding of default is recorded and the adjudicating authority proceeds to admit the application the corporate insolvency resolution process commences as provided under sub-section (6) and is required to be processed further. In such event, it becomes a proceeding in rem on the date of admission and from that point onwards the matter would not be arbitrable. The only course to be followed thereafter is the resolution process under IB Code. Therefore, the trigger point is not the filing of the application under Section 7 of IB Code but admission of the same on determining default. 18. In that circumstance, though Dr Singhvi has referred to the evolution of IB Code after all earlier legal process had failed to give the rightful place to the creditor; which is sought to be achieved by the IB Code, it cannot be said that by the procedure prescribed under the IB Code it means that the claim of the creditor if made before NCLT, more particular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other factors which need consideration, appropriate orders in that regard would be made; the consequence of which could be the dismissal of the petition under Section 7 of IB Code on taking note of the stance of the corporate debtor. As otherwise if in every case where there is debt, if default is also assumed and the process becomes automatic, a company which is ably running its administration and discharging its debts in planned manner may also be pushed to the corporate insolvency resolution process and get entangled in a proceeding with no point of return. Therefore, the adjudicating authority certainly would make an objective assessment of the whole situation before coming to a conclusion as to whether the petition under Section 7 of IB Code is to be admitted in the factual background. Dr Singhvi, however contended, that when it is shown the debt is due and the same has not been paid the adjudicating authority should record default and admit the petition. He contends that even in such situation the interest of the corporate debtor is not jeopardised inasmuch as the admission orders made by the adjudicating authority are appealable to NCLAT and thereafter to the Supreme Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIRP is default, and that even a recovery certificate constitutes a fresh cause of action for initiation of insolvency proceedings. The mere pendency of parallel recovery proceedings does not establish mala fides unless abuse under Section 65 is demonstrated. The following paragraphs are apposite in this context: "40. From the scheme of the IBC, it could be seen that where any corporate debtor commits a default, a financial creditor, an operational creditor or the corporate debtor itself is entitled to initiate CIRP in respect of such corporate debtor in the manner as provided under the said Chapter. The default has been defined to mean non-payment of debt. The debt has been defined to mean a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes a financial debt and operational debt. A claim means a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, disputed, etc. It is more than settled that the trigger point to initiate CIRP is when a default takes place. A default would take place when a debt in respect of a claim is due and not paid. A claim would include a right to payment whether or not such a right is reduce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority. The prohibition to institution of suit or continuation of pending suits or proceedings including execution of decree would not mean that a decree-holder is also prohibited from initiating CIRP, if he is otherwise entitled to in law. The effect would be that the applicant, who is a decreeholder, would himself be prohibited from executing the decree in his favour." 12.14. The above position was reiterated in Tottempudi Salalith v. SBI [(2022) 9 SCC 186] Relying upon Kotak Mahindra, this Court held as follows: "20. On behalf of the appellant, submissions have been made that the banks having approached the DRT, were barred under the doctrine of election from approaching NCLT for recovery of same set of debts. This is a doctrine embodied in the law of evidence, which bars prosecution of the same right in two different fora based on the same cause of action. But so far as the present appeal is concerned, the recovery proceedings before the DRT had commenced in the year 2014. At that point of time, IBC had not come into existence. Moreover, it has been held by this Court in Kotak Mahindra-1 [Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cated, is not illegal per se. What is prohibited is malicious recovery within the meaning of Section 65, and not recovery in the traditional sense. 12.16. The concept of revival under the IBC does not exclude recovery altogether; it excludes abuse of insolvency as a pressure tactic. The Adjudicating Authority retains a crucial gatekeeping role at later stages, particularly at the time of approval of the resolution plan, to ensure compliance with the Code while respecting the primacy of the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. 12.17. In Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited v. Swwapnil Bhingardevay and others [(2020) 9 SCC 729], this Court reiterated that questions relating to feasibility and viability fall squarely within the domain of the CoC, and cannot be examined at the threshold stage. The following paragraphs are relevant in this regard: "12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. On the first question regarding the viability and feasibility of a resolution plan, the law is now wellsettled. In K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, (2019) 12 SCC 150, it was held as follows: "52...There is an intrinsic assumption that financial cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncerned, and Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the Code, insofar as the Appellate Tribunal is concerned. ... 73...Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of." 14. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, make one thing very clear. If all the factors that need to be taken into account for determining whether or not the corporate debtor can be kept running as a going concern have been placed before the Committee of Creditors and the CoC has taken a conscious decision to approve the resolution plan, then the adjudicating authority will have to switch over to the hands off mode. It is not the case of the corporate debtor or its promoter/Director or anyone else that some of the factors which are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remediless. It also rejected the contention that the Corporate Debtor's alleged viability could excuse non-payment of admitted dues, noting that financial distress was manifest from the continuing and acknowledged defaults. 12.21. The debt and default having been conclusively established, and the narrow exception carved out in Vidarbha Industries being clearly inapplicable, the NCLAT was fully justified in admitting the Corporate Debtor into the CIRP. The NCLT's refusal was contrary to the settled law and the statutory mandate of Section 7. 12.22. Accordingly, the impugned judgment admitting the Corporate Debtor into the CIRP does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 13. Question No. 2 - Rejection of the Intervention Application filed by the Society 13.1. While it is undisputed that individual homebuyers are financial creditors within the meaning of the IBC, the core question that arises for determination is whether a society or association of homebuyers possesses locus standi to intervene in proceedings under Section 7 of the Code, either at the admission stage or at the appellate stage. 13.2. The appellant Society contends that it represents the collective interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e a procedure prescribed under the existing framework. These may be summarised as follows: 63.1. Before the application under Sections 7, 9 or 10 is admitted by NCLT: Such cases are squarely covered by Rule 8 of the NCLT Rules, which requires that the applicant approach NCLT directly. NCLT may then pass an order permitting the withdrawal of the application. At this stage, as CIRP process has not been initiated, the proceedings are still in personam, as between the applicant creditor and the corporate debtor. Therefore, while approving the withdrawal at this stage, NCLT may restrict its enquiry to only hear the applicant creditor and corporate debtor, and other potential creditors are not stakeholders at this stage. 63.2....... 75. The provision stipulates that "any person" who is aggrieved by the order of NCLAT may file an appeal before the Supreme Court within the prescribed limitation period. Similar language is used in Section 61 IBC, which provides for appeals to NCLAT from orders of NCLT^[1]. The use of the phrase "any person aggrieved" indicates that there is no rigid locus requirement to institute an appeal challenging an order of NCLT, before NCLA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solution plan could have otherwise been approved by CoC, satisfies the requirement of being aggrieved. This preliminary locus standi objection vis-àvis the appellant, therefore, does not merit acceptance." 13.7. The IBC is a self-contained code which confers participatory rights only on persons falling within statutorily defined categories. A financial creditor under Section 5(7) must be a person to whom a financial debt is owed. While the Explanation to Section 5(8)(f) deems individual allottees to be financial creditors, it does not extend such status to societies or associations unless the entity is itself a creditor in its own right, or is statutorily recognised as an authorised representative under the Code. 13.8. A society is a distinct juristic entity separate from its members. Unless it has itself advanced funds, executed allotment agreements, or received allotments, it cannot claim financial creditor status. The right to initiate or participate in CIRP flows from the debt transaction and the statute, not from associative or representational interest. 13.9. Homebuyers' societies or welfare associations are ordinarily constituted for maintenance and managemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was made to the decision in GLAS Trust Company, wherein, it was held as follows: "(iii) Scope of "inherent powers" under Rule 11 67. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") reads as follows: "151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 68. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which preserve the inherent powers of NCLT and NCLAT, respectively, mirror Section 151CPC and read as follows: "11. Inherent powers.-Nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Appellate Tribunal." 69. In a consistent line of precedent, this Court has held that "inherent powers" may be exercised in cases where there is no express provision under the legal framework. However, such powers cannot be exerci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....served as follows: (SCC p. 481, para 101) "101. Any claim seeking an exercise of the adjudicating authority's residuary powers under Section 60(5)(c) IBC, NCLT's inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 or even the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution must be closely scrutinised for broader compliance with the insolvency framework and its underlying objective. The adjudicating mechanisms which have been specifically created by the statute, have a narrowly defined role in the process and must be circumspect in granting reliefs that may run counter to the timeliness and predictability that is central to IBC. Any judicial creation of a procedural or substantive remedy that is not envisaged by the statute would not only violate the principle of separation of powers, but also run the risk of altering the delicate coordination that is designed by IBC framework and have grave implications on the outcome of CIRP, the economy of the country and the lives of the workers and other allied parties who are statutorily bound by the impact of a resolution or liquidation of a corporate debtor." 13.16. As clarified in GLAS Trust Company, invocat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in the particular case..." 78. Further, in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262, the nature of an administrative power and the obligations reposed upon the State to function in a just and fair manner was explained: "13. The dividing line between an administrative power and a quasijudicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. For determining whether a power is an administrative power or a quasijudicial power one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the framework of the law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing from the exercise of that power and the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised. Under our Constitution the rule of law pervades over the entire field of administration. Every organ of the State under our Constitution is regulated and controlled by the rule of law. In a welfare State like ours it is inevitable that the jurisdiction of the administrative bodies is increasing at a rapid rate. The concept of rule of law would lose its vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e entitled to file claims and participate in the CoC through authorised representatives. * Regulation 4E protects possession subject to 66% CoC approval. * Any approved resolution plan binds all stakeholders and ensures equitable treatment. * RERA rights stand harmonized with the IBC, as held by this Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Mansi Brar Fernandez. 13.22. Accordingly, we hold that * The right to initiate or participate in insolvency proceedings is statutory, not equitable. * A society or Resident Welfare Association, not being a creditor in its own right and not recognised as an authorised representative of allottees under the IBC, has no locus standi to intervene in proceedings arising out a Section 7 petition. * The NCLAT was justified in rejecting the Society's intervention application. * No prejudice has been caused to homebuyers, whose interests are adequately safeguarded under the Code. 14. At this juncture, we may aptly refer to the decision in Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma and another [2025 INSC 1110], wherein while dealing with the growing misuse of the insolvency framework by speculative inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng directions are issued to the concerned authorities, in the larger interests of bona fide homebuyers and the stability of the real estate sector, which demand coordinated action by all stakeholders: ... (6) Resolution of real estate insolvency should, as a rule, proceed on a project specific basis rather than the entire corporate debtor, unless circumstances justify otherwise. This would protect solvent projects and genuine homebuyers from collateral prejudice. IBBI shall also devise a mechanism to enable handover of possession to willing allottees where substantial units in a project are complete. (8) Regulations shall ensure meaningful representation of allottees in the CoC through authorized representatives, with safeguards against conflicts of interest." Conclusion 15. For the foregoing reasons, * The appeal challenging admission of the Corporate Debtor into CIRP is dismissed. * The appeal challenging rejection of the intervention application is also dismissed, subject to the clarification on the limited scope of locus standi and inherent powers. It is clarified that upon commencement of CIRP, any aggrieved stakeholder may....