NCLAT - Creditors of a class for amended Section 7(1) threshold of 10% or 100 whichever is Lower must be from a particular project registered with RERA

Pankaj Mehta V/s M/s. Ansal Hi-tech Township Limited 

Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 248 of 2023 

(Arising out of the `Impugned Order’ dated 06.01.2023 in CP (IB) No. 596 (PB) / 2021)

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI  

Time line of the Matter :-

1. The ‘Appellant / Financial Creditor / Applicant’, along with106 other ‘Financial Creditors / Applicants’, had preferred petition ,under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016 before NCLT PB New Delhi.
2.  Wherein, M/s. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Limited, was described as the ‘Corporate Debtor’ and the Total Amount of Debt, was mentioned as Rs.41,81,90,116/- 
3. On Date 06/01/2023, NCLT,  dismissed the main Company Petition as `Not Maintainable’ terming that the `Allottees’, belong to different Sub Projects.

Fact of the Case:- 

1. A Project by the name of  'Sushant Megapolis near Dadri Town, adjoining Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.  by Corporate Debtor M/s Ansal comprises of Plots / Built-up Plots/ Row Houses/ Flats / Floors /  Villas / High-rise Apartments, under various allocated Sites.
2. License for developing the Township, was granted  in Year2006, by the UP Government with the instruction of Entire Construction be completed by year 2016.
3. By 2016 the Project was incomplete and M/s Ansal registered 25 separate projects having separate `RERA Registrations’ in this Township with RERA.
4.  Appellants are 107 different Allottee  who purchased different types of Units such as Plots / Flats/ Apartments /EWS unit , in the Project.
5. The Possession date of all the allottees  was from 36 months to 42 months, from the date of sanction of the `Layout Plan’ of the `Allotted Unit’. 

Submissions by Appellant

1.  All the Applicants had entered into respective BBAs, much before the RERA Act,2016 came into force.
2.  The said `Agreements’, specifically, defines that `Sushant Megapolis’, as one complete `Project’.
3. The `Single Layout Plan of this project reflects Group Housing/ Plots and EWS Units as part of `One Project’, comprising of 2504 Acres of Property.
4. A Single  Application for Environmental Clearance, was filed for the entire project. 
5.  The Project in question, is a `Single Real Estate Project’, for the purposes of Section 7 of the IB Code, 2016.
6. It therefore, falls under the requisite ambit of the provisos of the amended Section 7(1) of the IB Code 2016 pertaining to the minimum threshold requirement of 100 Allottees or 10% of the Total Allottees, whichever is less, belonging to the `same Real Estate project’. 
7. The NCLT, Passed the impugned Judgment without considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors  (2021) 5 SCC OnLine SCC 1, wherein, it is observed that a Real estate project can be a composite one for Plots and Apartments or for Plots & Buildings.
8. Further, the definition of `Allottee’, is split into broadly three Categories Plot, Apartment and Building and the `Purchasers’ of all these are covered under the term `Allottee’ 
9.  The interpretation, laid down by the was incorrect  that 100 or 10% of the `Allottees’, must be from the `same Building’, and `not from the same `Real Estate Project’.

Submissions by Respondent

1. The Township, consists of Multiple Residential  and Commercial Real Estate Project, and all the sub-projects, are independent of each other and are being developed and sold as separate Projects.
2. Each and Every phase, is registered as a stand-alone Real Estate Project under RERA with separate `RERA Registration Numbers’
3. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that the task of ascertaining who will be Allottees and therefore, what would constitute 10% of total number of Allottees must depend upon the nature of the `Real Estate Project’.
4.  The Petitioners do not satisfy the required threshold limit of 10% or 100 persons’, whichever is lower, in none of the Project / Project categories, 
5. Approximately 50 Petitioners are either Co-Applicants or Third Applicants for a Single Unit just to fulfill the requisite number of 100 Allottees. whereas in the matter of Manish Kumar v. Union of India, wherein, it is held that `one unit equals to one Allottees’, even though, the said Unit is jointly held. 
6. The NCLT  made ‘inquiry’ and considered all the records pertaining to the Project.

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court.

1. The Corporate Debtor, had executed, at least Three different kinds of Agreements, namely  (a) `Plot Allottee Agreement’ (b) `Built-up Unit Allottee Agreement’ and (c) `Apartment Allottee Agreement as the projects were of `different character’ with `different type of developments with independent, RERA Registrations. ’
2. In none of the Projects / Project Categories, the Applicants  fulfil the requirement of Threshold Limit’ of 10% or 100 persons, whichever is less. 
3. the Appellant are from different numerous projects, and they have not established their case, as `Creditors of a class’, concerning any `particular project’, registered with RERA, with a view to fulfil the requirement of  Section 7 (1) of the IBC in regards to 10% or 100 Allottees’
4. In the present case on hand, the foremost aspect to be taken into account is the RERA Registration of the Projects, of the Corporate Debtor, for ensuring the Initial limit for pressing into service of the ingredients of Section 7 of the Code. 
5. The `Impugned Order’ and the views expressed in dismissing the CP (IB) No. 596 (PB) / 2021, is free from any `legal flaws’. 

Court’s Order

Accordingly the instant `Appeal’ sans merits is `Dismissed’ with no costs.

Karnataka High Court - RERA has no Authority Over Projects Granted ‘Partial’ Occupancy Certificate Prior to Enforcement of RERA

RERA has no Authority Over Projects Granted ‘Partial’ Occupancy Certificate Prior to Enforcement of RERA

Provident Housing Limited Vs Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority Writ Petition No.18448 of 2021

Date of Judgement/Order : 02/01/2023

Brief Facts of the Case:

• The petitioner is engaged in the business of real estate development. 
• On receiving respondent’s request to allot an apartment in the project, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale and Construction with Respondent on 10/09/14. 
• The proposed date of completion of project was 31/01/17. 
• On 18/11/15– A partial occupancy certificate was granted by the competent authority i.e. BDA to the petitioner. 
• On 27/04/17– Second partial occupancy certificate was issued in favour of petitioner. 
• On 14/05/17– Respondent seeks to cancel the agreement on the ground that there was information to him that the land had not been legally acquired by the petitioner for construction of the Apartment complex. 
• On 04/12/17– The contract between petitioner and respondent is concluded, petitioner refunds the amount after deducting the cancellation charges.
• In 2019– Respondent by invoking Section 31 of the RERA Act, files a complaint before RERA Authority seeking a refund of remaining amount. 
• The authority passes the impugned order, directing the petitioner to refund the said amount. 
• On receiving the authority’s order, Petitioner files a petition before Karnataka HC challenging the maintainability of the complaint filed by respondent before the authority.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

• The partial occupancy certificate was issued in favor of petitioner before the commencement of the Act.  
• Therefore, the project of petitioner had already passed the stage of ‘ongoing project’ and is a ‘completed project’. 
• Since the project was completed before the commencement of the RERA Act, the Act is not applicable to petitioner’s project and therefore any complaint filed before the authority by invoking the provisions of the Act is not maintainable.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The project is still an ‘ongoing project’ as no ‘competition certificate’ was issued in favour of petitioner.

Issues:

• Whether the complaint filed by respondent before the Karnataka Real Estate Authority is maintainable? 
• Whether ‘on-going’ project includes the project for which completion certificate has not been issued.

Court’s Decision: 

• The court while taking into consideration the provisions of RERA Act (Section 2(q), 3, 18, 31, 43 and 84) and the rules made by Karnataka Government (Rule 3 and 4) under Section 84 of the Act, made following observations- 
• Section 3 of the Act mandates the registration for all ongoing projects at the time of commencement of the Act.  
• Section 3(2)(b) specifically excludes those projects to be registered under the act for which ‘completion certificate’ has been issued before the commencement of the Act. 
• In the present case, partial occupancy certificates have been issued, the project would be considered to be not completed at the time of commencement of this Act. 
• The explanation of ‘ongoing project’ under the Karnataka Government Rules (Rule 4) exempts the application of the Act to those projects for which partial occupancy certificate has been issued prior to coming into force of the Act. 
• Therefore as per Rule 4 of the Karnataka Government Rules, the project is not an ongoing project as the explanation in Rule exempts such an ongoing project for which partial certificate has been obtained to the extent of the portion for which the partial occupancy certificate is obtained.
• Therefore, the provisions of the RERA Act are not applicable to the project and the order issued by the Authority is without jurisdiction and thus is not maintainable. 

• Held: The order passed by Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority is without jurisdiction. The project in question is a registered project in view of grant of partial occupancy certificates. In light of the same, the complaint filed before the authority by the respondent, itself is not maintainable.