NCLAT Delhi Rejects Homebuyers Application For CIRP Against Ansal Hi-Tech Township

NCLAT Delhi Rejects Homebuyers Application For CIRP Against Ansal Hi-Tech Township

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Delhi, bench consisting of Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), dismissed the application filed by homebuyers under Section 7 of the IBC, seeking the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Ansal Hi-Tech Township.

The Appellant, representing a group of homebuyers, purchased their flats between 2011 and 2012 in the Sushant Metropolis Township situated in Gautam Budh Nagar, which was under development by the Respondent (Corporate Debtor).

As per the allotment agreements, the respondent committed to providing possession of the flats within 36 to 42 months from the date of the sanctioned plan. However, the respondent failed to fulfil this commitment by not delivering the flats within the promised timeframe.

Disappointed by the delay in receiving possession, the appellant filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC in the NCLT Delhi, seeking the commencement of CIRP proceedings against the respondent.

In its order dated 06th January 2023, the NCLT Delhi dismissed the appellant's application and stated that the homebuyers are associated with various projects within the Township, each undergoing construction and registration independently under RERA. Hence, to initiate CIRP, homebuyers must satisfy the minimum threshold requirement of either 10% or 100 homebuyers for each individual project.

Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal against the NCLT's order dated 06th January 2023, with the NCLAT.

The appellant argued that the Township should be regarded as a single project, as outlined in the allotment agreement referring to Sushant Megapolis as one integrated project. Additionally, the appellant contended that the NCLT Delhi misinterpreted explanation (ii) of Section 5(8) of the IBC, implying that each RERA registration constitutes a real estate project. Furthermore, the appellant asserted that while filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC, creditors in a Class/Allottees should only need to meet the criteria of 100 homebuyers, or 10% of the homebuyers, in line with the RERA registration granted to a real estate project.

The NCLAT affirmed the NCLT Delhi's order, concluding that the homebuyers are linked with distinct projects, with each project being developed independently and registered separately under RERA. Consequently, they do not meet the minimum threshold necessary to initiate CIRP proceedings against the respondent.

Moreover, the NCLAT determined that the homebuyers belong to various distinct projects and have not substantiated their status as creditors of a class pertaining to any specific project registered with RERA to satisfy the stipulated requirement of 10% or 100 homebuyers, as mandated under Section 7(1) of the IBC 2016.

Hence, NCLAT affirmed NCLT Delhi's decision and determined that the appellant's plea to commence CIRP proceedings against the respondent lacks merit, as it fails to meet the minimum threshold requirements.