IBC Prevails Over RERA in Case of Conflict with Individual Refund Rights; Homebuyers Bound by Collective Class Decision: NCLT Mumbai
Cause Title: Vivek Talwar & Others v. Rajesh Jhunjhunwala, Resolution Professional & Others
Case No.: I.A. (IB) No. 3688 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 389/MB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has held that a resolution plan cannot be required to incorporate an individual homebuyer's right to seek refund under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”), where enforcement of such individual right is inconsistent with the collective insolvency resolution process contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
A Bench comprising K.R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial), and Anil Raj Chellan, Member (Technical), dismissed an application filed by four homebuyers seeking reconsideration of the resolution plan of Spenta Enclave Private Limited and, alternatively, seeking directions for provision of an exit and refund mechanism for homebuyers who did not wish to continue with their respective units.
The applicants had booked two flats in the “Altavista” project developed by Spenta Enclave Private Limited and had paid approximately ₹89.23 lakh and ₹86.71 lakh towards the purchase consideration between 2017 and 2021. Although possession was initially represented to be delivered by December 2019 and subsequently by December 2020, the project remained incomplete. Consequently, the applicants sought refund and initiated proceedings before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in July 2022, prior to commencement of the CIRP.
The CIRP commenced on 24 March 2023. During the CIRP, the applicants submitted their claims as homebuyers, which were admitted by the Resolution Professional. They subsequently informed the Resolution Professional that they were unwilling to pay the balance consideration and did not wish to continue with the project. Their grievance was principally directed against the resolution plan on the ground that it did not provide an exit or refund mechanism for homebuyers seeking withdrawal under Section 18 of RERA.
The applicants relied upon Clause 18 of their respective Agreements for Sale, which contemplated refund with interest in the event of failure to deliver possession within the stipulated period. It was contended that the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”), upon taking over the project, would step into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter and would consequently be bound by the contractual and statutory obligations owed to the applicants under RERA.
The resolution plan, however, specifically provided that “no cancellation of the Units by the Homebuyers will be entertained by the Resolution Applicant.” The applicants contended that such a provision amounted to an impermissible unilateral alteration of their contractual and statutory rights.
The Tribunal rejected the contention. It examined the scope of Section 18 of RERA, which enables an allottee, in specified circumstances, to seek return of the amount paid together with interest where the promoter fails to complete the project or is unable to give possession in accordance with the agreement. However, the Tribunal observed that, at the relevant stage, the SRA could not be treated as having stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter.
The Tribunal noted that the resolution plan had not yet been approved by the Adjudicating Authority and, consequently, the SRA had not assumed control of the project. Its obligations to complete the project would arise in accordance with the resolution plan upon its approval. The SRA therefore could not, at that stage, be treated as having assumed all contractual obligations arising from agreements entered into between the applicants and the Corporate Debtor.
The Tribunal further noted that the CoC had considered the applicants' request for refund and had concluded that cancellation of units and consequent refund would adversely affect the cash flows of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that homebuyers constituted approximately 22.66% of the voting share in the CoC and had approved the resolution plan through their Authorised Representative, whereas the four applicants collectively represented approximately 0.22% voting share.
In this context, the Tribunal emphasised the collective nature of the insolvency resolution process and observed that the SRA ought to be permitted to take over the Corporate Debtor in accordance with the approved resolution framework, without being subjected to liabilities in a manner inconsistent with the resolution plan. The Tribunal also noted that the SRA was not a party to the proceedings and, therefore, relief affecting its rights and obligations could not appropriately be granted without affording it an opportunity of being heard.
Interplay between RERA and IBC
On the interplay between RERA and the IBC, the Tribunal observed that the two enactments operate in distinct fields. While RERA seeks to protect the interests of individual homebuyers and regulate the real estate sector, the IBC provides a collective statutory mechanism for resolution and revival of financially distressed corporate entities.
The Tribunal held that, where the provisions of the two enactments operate inconsistently, Section 238 of the IBC gives the Code overriding effect. Consequently, an individual remedy available to a homebuyer under RERA cannot be enforced in a manner that defeats or undermines the collective insolvency resolution process under the IBC.
The Tribunal also relied upon the statutory framework governing homebuyers as a class of financial creditors. In particular, it referred to Section 25A(3A) of the IBC, under which the Authorised Representative is required to cast votes in accordance with the decision taken by the requisite majority of the homebuyers comprising the relevant class. The Tribunal accordingly held that an individual homebuyer cannot seek treatment contrary to the collective decision of the class merely because such individual homebuyer may otherwise possess a separate remedy under another enactment.
The Tribunal further observed that it could not direct modification of the commercial terms of a resolution plan or compel the CoC or the SRA to renegotiate the terms of the plan.
The Tribunal underscored that the insolvency resolution process under the IBC proceeds on the basis of collective resolution of claims and balancing of the interests of various stakeholders. Since the applicants' claims had already been admitted within the CIRP, they could not insist upon a separate, individualised remedy outside the insolvency framework where such remedy was inconsistent with the resolution plan and the collective decision-making process under the IBC.
The Tribunal also took note of the fact that substantially similar refund claims had earlier been rejected in applications filed by the same applicants in 2024 and that the said orders had not been challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. The earlier orders had consequently attained finality.
In view of the above, the Tribunal found no sufficient ground to interfere with the resolution plan or to direct its reconsideration and accordingly dismissed the application without costs.
