Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Pankaj Naqvi and Piyush Agrawal, JJ., issued a general mandamus to Competent Authorities under U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 or any other cognate enactment to decide the grievances of home buyers within 3 months from the date the grievance is brought to their knowledge.

State of U.P. taking cognizance of the rise in population and demand for space especially for residential purposes enacted U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010.

It has been stated that the object of the Act is to give primacy to the interest of the owners of the apartments and protection of their rights against arbitrary and profit-oriented actions of the promoters/builders in which a role of an arbiter has been assigned to the competent authority in the Development Authority as held in Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, 2013 (9) ADJ 594.

Genesis of the instant petition

Bench has taken judicial notice that a large number of cases have been coming before the Court on behalf of the home-buyers who after having spent their hard-earned life savings, buy an apartment, only to face hostile and arbitrary actions from the promoters/builders/Development Authorities and instead of resolving such disputes, they become mute spectators.

Irregularities highlighted by Home-Buyers

Petitioner by the instant petition has highlighted several irregularities in violation of their agreements on the part of the respondent 3 being the developer co-promoter of the residential project “Shipra Shritsti” which despite several representations to respondent 2 have gone unattended.

High Court deemed it appropriate to issue a general mandamus to the competent authorities to dispose of the grievance of home-buyers within a stipulated period so as to obviate an individual home-buyer or a registered association, as the case may be, from approaching this Court time and again.

Further, the Court added that the benefit of this order shall also be extended to the competent authority envisaged under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and other cognate enactments.

Court issues directions

Following were the directions issued by the High Court in light of the above discussion:

(i) A general mandamus is issued to the Competent Authorities under U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 & U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 or any other cognate enactment to decide the grievance of the home- buyers or their associations, positively within 3 months from the date the grievance is brought to their knowledge, by reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the aggrieved persons.

(ii) The Competent Authority shall ensure that before any decision is taken, a right of audience is given to the parties concerned.

(iii) The Competent Authority shall ensure that an officer not below the rank of a Gazetted Officer shall periodically visit the apartment/building at least once in 6 months at a prior notice to the registered association which shall be obliged to circulate it amongst its member so as to give them an opportunity to ventilate their grievance if any. Any reported violation shall be immediately brought to the notice of the Authority concerned which shall immediately take remedial steps.

(iv) Any inaction on the part of Competent Authority shall be construed as a serious dereliction of duty, warranting interference from the State Government.

[Shipra Sristhi Apartment v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 43, decided on 05-01-2021]

Advocate for the Parties:

Counsel for Petitioner: Abhinav Gaur, Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.), Vibhu Rai

Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Pandey, Rohan Gupta, Tarun Agrawal

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: S.C. Gupte, J., held that a real estate developer cannot rely on usual ‘force majeure’ clause to deny possession to homebuyers.

The instant appeal challenged the Order passed by RERA Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.

Original Complaint that was filed by the respondent was:

Respondent who was a flat purchaser and who had claimed interest from the appellant for the delay in handing over of possession of the premises, for the period from the date of possession stipulated under the agreement till the date of actual possession.

Further, it was stated that Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 while accepting the respondent’s claim awarded interest from January 2018; the adjudicating authority gave six months extension on a unilateral basis to the appellant by way of a grace period.

When the above-stated matter was carried in appeal by the respondent-complainant in RERA Appellate Tribunal it was held that there was no specific clause in the agreement, entitling appellant/promoter to any grace period of six months or otherwise.

Appellate Tribunal observed that the date of delivery of possession of the premises stipulated under the agreement was on or before 30 June 2017 and, accordingly, directed payment of interest from 01-07-2017 till the date of delivery of possession of the premises.

Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the agreement referred to above contained a clause that the possession date was subject inter alia to any cause beyond the control of the Developer including any order of the Centre, Local Authority or Body or due to delay in issuing completion certificate or occupation certificate by the Authorities.

It was noted from the above contention that the said clause was nothing but an ordinary force majeure clause, where the promoter cannot be faulted for the delay in delivery of possession, if such delay is caused by any reason beyond his control.

Force Majeure clause doesn’t provide for any grace period to the promoter.

Bench while considering the facts of the case stated that it is apparent from the record that the adjudicating authority was not impressed by any of the reasons submitted by the appellant towards the justification for the delay.

Adding to the above, Court found that the order of the adjudicating authority proceeded on the basis that even if facts pointed out by the Promoter were to be taken into consideration as justification for the delay, a six months’ grace period could be granted for delivery of possession to the Promoter.

“…neither the Appellate Tribunal nor the adjudicating authority found in favour of the Appellant/Promoter insofar as its case for justification of the delay was concerned.”

Hence, a grace period of six months considered by adjudicating authority was nothing but an ad-hoc measure and was rightly not accepted by the Appellate Tribunal.

Accordingly, the substantial question of law arose from Appellate Tribunal’s impugned order.

Therefore, the second appeal was dismissed. [Westin Developers (P) Ltd. v. Raymond Alexis Nunes, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3912, decided on 04-12-2020]

Advocates who appeared for the matter:

Dakshesh Vyas a/w Dominic D’Souza and Sumit Kothari i/b. Agrud Partners, for Appellant/Applicant.

Huzefa Nasikwala a/w Sujit S. Mashal i/b. Nasikwala Law Office, for Respondent.

Op EdsOP. ED.

Parliament of India enacted the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016[1] (“the Code”) to consolidate laws relating to insolvency and bankruptcy in India and provide an effective legal framework for timely resolution of the companies. The Code provided Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors with the right to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), against a Corporate Debtor under Sections 7 and 9 respectively.

I.  Allottees as Financial Creditors – a step forward

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018[2] (“the IBC Amendment, 2018”) included the allottees of real estate projects as financial creditors under the Code. Hereafter, the allottees could apply to initiate the CIRP against the Corporate Debtors (“real estate developer”) alike other financial creditors i.e. banks and financial institutions. The Supreme Court of India in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India[3]  (“Pioneer”) upheld the constitutional validity of the inclusion of allottees as financial creditors [“allottee(s)”] on 09.08.2019. The Court also categorically refused reading into any limitation like pre-requisite minimum threshold in terms of numbers or otherwise on the right of allottees to approach the Tribunal and trigger the resolution process.[4] Thus, an allottee of a real estate project was given a right to initiate the CIRP like other financial creditors “either by itself or jointly with other financial creditors” against a real estate developer on the occurrence of a default under Section 7 of the Code.

II. The legislative retraction – a limitation imposed

However, first, the President of India promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019[5] (“the Ordinance”) on 28.12.2019 as a stop-gap arrangement to limit the accessibility of individual allottees or to the Tribunal if a minimum threshold limit is not met. Section 3 of the Ordinance amended Section 7 of the Code by adding three provisos. The second proviso placed a condition on the allottees of at least being 100 or 10% of the total number of allottees, whichever is less, in the “same real estate project” to apply for initiation of the CIRP. Moreover, the third proviso directed the applicants of the pending applications which have yet not been admitted by the Tribunal shall be modified in conformity of the abovesaid minimum threshold within a period of one month i.e. by 28.01.2020, failing which such applications shall be automatically deemed as withdrawn.

The Ordinance was approved by Parliament on 13.03.2020 vide the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020[6] (“the IBC Amendment, 2020”) with identical provisions. Like the Ordinance, the IBC Amendment, 2020 has imposed pre-requisite minimum threshold for allottees of real estate project to approach the Tribunal under Section 7 of the Code vide an identical Section 3. In a writ petition titled Manish Kumar v. Union of India[7] , the provision has been challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Primarily, the amendment has been challenged on the ground of being class legislation without any reasonable differentia and its retrospective application as manifestly arbitrary. The Court ordered status quo on 13.01.2020.[8]

With this background, the present article first, examines the wholesome effect of the condition imposed on allottee who was earlier given the right to apply for initiation of the CIRP individually, like other Financial Creditors. Second, the authors aver that the amendment in Section 7 vide the second and third provisos was uncalled for in light of the existing mechanism under the Code and the alternatives which were available with the legislature. Last, the authors suggest the possible middle way available now with the Court in pending writ petition.

 III. Repairing effect of the second and third provisos to Section 3 of the IBC Amendment, 2020

The abovesaid limitation on the allottees of a real estate project is placed as a consequence of several apprehensions and after-effects of inclusion of allottees under Section 7 at par with other financial creditors. Their inclusion as financial creditor was followed with a surge in applications against the real estate developers before the Tribunal. Numerous independent applications were filed by allottees against the same real estate developers. Nearly, all the real estate companies[9] found themselves in hot water before the Tribunal as Corporate Debtors for defaults committed in timely completion of the projects and handover of timely possessions. This brought the real estate developers on their tenterhooks and they raised concerns of being entangled in malicious applications by multiple allottees which have severely affected their regular working. It was also argued that the Code has been used as a “debt recovery mechanism” instead of reviving such a corporate entity.

The Preamble of the Ordinance, the recent Standing Committee Report[10], or the IBC Amendment, 2020 does not state any specific reason to amend Section 7 of the Code. However, considering the abovesaid circumstances, the amendment can be inferred to have been brought in principally to cure two ills. First, all the allottees of the same project can be clubbed before-hand for efficiency in the hearings before the Tribunal and resolution process. Second, the legislature intends to bar applications by individual allottees who with the provided liberty and access to the Tribunal, could single-handedly topple down the existence of the real estate developer maliciously, despite, the entity being a going-concern and in the hands of good management. This would consequentially revive and also keep the real estate industry alive to the market needs.

Thus, the legislature amended Section 7 to alleviate the anxiety and troubles of the real estate developers. The amendment attempts to alleviate the miseries of the real estate developers due to multiple applications and keep the real estate sector alive and responsive to their needs in the development of the country. The amendment has been welcomed by the real estate developers who had been brought before the Tribunal maliciously or on minor defaults with the sole purpose of refund, instead of a revival of the entity.

 IV. Impairing effect of the second and third provisos to Section 3 of the Ordinance

In contrast to the above said, the amendment has, however, impaired the right of the allottees who will now be not able to approach the Tribunal individually and independently or jointly, unlike other financial creditors and operational creditors, if the required minimum threshold is not met. The legislature has imposed minimum thresholds of 100 or 10% with retrospective applicability on the allottees who were included as financial creditors seeing their contribution in the projects and their condition of suffering for years.

Apart from the objections to the constitutional validity, the amendment in Section 7 gives rise to several anomalies which will need redressal by the Court or legislature in future.  The amendment also gives rise to several severe consequential hardships and inconvenience to the allottees, particularly due to its retrospective applicability.  These can be noted as follows:

i. Anomalies due to the amendment

First, as aforesaid the pending applications had to be “modified” within a period of one month. If a party fails to comply with the second proviso to Section 3 of the IBC Amendment, 2020, the application will be deemed withdrawn. But the legislature has not explained what is meant by the term “modified[11] used in the third proviso to Section 3 of the Ordinance and the IBC Amendment, 2020. Does it merely mean amending the application wherein a party avers to having the requisite numbers along with a list of such allottees or does it mean that all the allottees whose applications are pending before the Tribunal or allottees who intend to apply shall be consolidated under one umbrella application pending before the Tribunal and thereafter be proceeded collectively?

Second, the amendment does not state whether the required strength of 100 or 10% of the total number of allottees, whichever is less, is mandated to be required only at the stage of initiating the proceedings or whether the strength needs to be continued and maintained all through. What will be the consequence if one or some allottees settle with the real estate developer and the requisite numbers then fall short subsequently? The Courts while interpreting Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 which provides a similar threshold for initiation of the proceedings of operation and mismanagement has held that the validity of petitions must be judged as they were at the time of its presentation. The legislature could have clarified this under the Code right from the inception and avert any such anomalies. Moreover, this may also give rise to mischiefs by several developers who may settle out of court with one or more allottees to make the proceedings infructuous.

Third, it would be interesting to see, if the said 10% criteria can include an allottee who may have defaulted in making payments to the developer considering the delay and default on part of the developer, can form part of the 10% group or not. To draw a parallel with the shareholders of a company filing under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, a member is disqualified to file whose calls are in arrears or whose shares are partly paid-up or who is a holder of a share warrant.

Last, Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013 or Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 delineate the procedure and conditions for a class action. However, the Code or the amendment does not provide any contours for a class action before the Tribunal.

ii. Consequential hardship and inconvenience to allottees

First, it is pertinent to note that the remedies under the Code are concurrent[12]  and does not bar remedies of different natures before different forums in different parts of the country. The legislature failed to appreciate the hardship in consolidating all or some of the allottees to meet the requisite threshold from different jurisdictions. For example, Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for the institution of complaint in a district forum at a place of business of opposite party or where the cause of action wholly or in part arose. However, Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 mandates the proceedings to be initiated only at the place where the corporate person has its registered office. Thus, the proceedings against the same real estate developer for the same project may be pending in different forums at different stages and in different jurisdictions. In such cases, bona fide applicants will fail to consolidate all allottees under one umbrella application or provide the number of pending disputes against the same real estate developer.

Second, the above hardship in consolidation is further elevated due to non-existence of any public record along with particular details of the allottees who have availed different remedies against the same project. Along with the amendment, the legislature should have brought a law which mandated the real estate developers to maintain the list of allottees of a project on a public platform. Until the real estate developers had complied with this requirement or until the time to comply expired, the right of the allottees to apply for initiating the CIRP should not have been curtailed.

Last, the legislature failed to realise that deemed withdrawal of applications filed but not admitted by the Tribunal within a period of one month will deny the applicants fruits of their already incurred litigation costs i.e. court fee and advocate fee. It will further encumber the allottees with afresh litigation costs for initiating de novo proceedings before other available forums. In many cases, the parties will have to also go through the hassles of agreeing to a common lawyer. This will be setting the clock backwards. It is pertinent to note that the Code provides summary proceedings and averting undue delay and a timely resolution was one of the prime objectives behind the enactment of the Code. However, the wholesome effect of Section 3 of the Amendment Ordinance, 2019 is contrary to the said objects of the Code.

V. Whether the second and third provisos to Section 3 of the IBC Amendment, 2020 are uncalled for?

On equating the pros and cons of the amendment in Section 7 of the Code and subsequently discussed alternatives, the authors are of the view that the amendment was uncalled for and in particular, to the extent of its applicability to pending applications. The legislature might have intended to balance the interest of the allottees and real estate developers but, there did already exist sufficient mechanism under the Code and the legislature had more feasible alternatives to address the concerns of the real estate developers.

i. Sufficient mechanism in place to check malicious applications

First, it is pertinent to note that on the admission of an application the Tribunal makes a public announcement and declares a moratorium under Section 14 of the Code. Other creditors like allottees, banks, and financial institutions can submit their claim before the Interim Resolution Applicant (“IRP”) or Resolution Applicant (“RP”). Thus, the intended clubbing and collating automatically happens with the admission of one application. After verification of their claims by the IRP or IP, they all can be part of the Committee of Creditors.

Second, the Code already provides an efficient statutory mechanism to keep a check on the apprehended mala fide applications whereby an allottee is apprehended to single-handedly topple down of the management or existence of the real estate developer despite it being a going concern. One, Section 65 of the Code already provides penalties ranging from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore on fraudulent or malicious initiation of proceedings. The Tribunal always has the power to impose costs on such applicants [See Navin Raheja v. Shilpa Jain[13] (Navin Raheja)]. For example,  in Ram Pal Suhag  v. Sweta Estates Pvt. Ltd.[14] the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the frivolous application filed to arm twist the real estate developer . Two, similarly, Section 75 of the Code provides for a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh to 1 crore if the applicant under Section 7 knowingly falsely states a material fact or omits to state any material fact in the application. Three, if a real estate developer fears cessation of the Company, there are already several stages for the parties can amicably settle[15] . Merely an attempt to settle the dispute cannot be imputed with allottee being a malicious applicant or that the applicant is using the Code as “debt recovery mechanism”.

Third, the Supreme Court specifically stated that “in a Section 7 application made by an allottee, the NCLT’s ‘satisfaction’ will be with both eyes open – the NCLT will not turn a Nelson’s eye to legitimate defences by a real estate developers”.[16] Thus, the Court will not sit merely as a mere rubber stamp to allow mala fide applications. The Tribunal can always dismiss an application if the real estate developer raises viable defences.

For example, an application may be dismissed if a real estate developer proves the occurrence of force majeure, actions inactions and omissions on the part of the Government or Authority, or default in payment by the allottees, or allottee not taking possession to earn higher interest etc. Inter alia other decisions, the NCLAT in Parvesh Magoo v. IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd.[17] dismissed the application of the allottee noting the force majeure and the fact that the apartment of the allottee was ready for possession. Similarly, in Navin Raheja[18]  the NCLAT allowed the appeal against the order of the Tribunal admitting Section 7 application. The Court held that if a delay is due to force majeure it cannot be alleged that the corporate debtor defaulted in delivering the possession”.

Fourth, the Supreme Court has already held that once an application is admitted by the Tribunal “it is a proceeding in rem which, after being triggered, goes completely outside the control of the allottee who triggers it….Under the Code, he may never get a refund of the entire principal, let alone interest….[He is] always taking the risk that if no one were to come forward, corporate death must ensue and the allottee must then stand in line to receive whatever is given to him in winding up” .[19]

Thus, an allottee cannot singlehandedly liquidate a real estate developer for his refund. “If the intention of the allottees is only for the refund of money and not the possession of apartment/ flat/premises, then the ‘Corporate Debtor’ may bring it to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority”.[20] Liquidation is the last consequence where the prior steps of revival fail. Thus, an allottee cannot straightway liquidate a company to recover his debts.

Last, it must be noted that a reasonably high court fee of Rs. 25,000 also inadvertently keeps a check on the filing of bona fide applications.

ii.   Alternatives

First, the legislature could have instead, increased the costs or penalty on the malicious and fraudulent applications under Section 65 of the Code to deter malicious applicants. The legislature could have harnessed exercise of the power of the Tribunal under Section 65 to contain malicious applications, if needed.

The legislature could have attempted to define malicious applications i.e. non-disclosure of material facts in the application or non-performance or non-compliance to the material terms of the agreement including but not limited to default in payment of instalments or taking of possession. Similarly, the legislature could have enlisted some defences available to the real estate developer i.e. as aforesaid, force majeure, or default on part of the applicant. To draw a parallel with the shareholders of a company filing under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, a member is disqualified to file whose calls are in arrears or whose shares are partly paid up. Thus, such allottees in default could have been restricted as being applicants under Section 7 of the Code.

Second, it is pertinent to note that Section 4 of the Code already provides the Central Government power to increase the pre-requisite of default from Rs. 1 lakh to any amount till Rs 1 crore. Thus, the Central Government could have easily increased the minimum threshold of default amount for the allottees of real estate project to approach under Section 7 of the Code i.e. Rs 10 lakh or 20 lakh for individual allottees. It must be noted that on 24.03.2020 the Government has raised the amount of default to Rs. 1 crore for all the creditors under Section 4 of the Code in view of the outbreak of Covid-19 epidemic. Similar step by the legislature for the allottees could have averted all legislative hassles and the above-discussed anomalies and hardships, arising out of Section 3 of the IBC Amendment, 2020.

Thus, given this position of law and alternatives, there was no viable reason to disable an individual allottee from applying without requisite numbers. The Tribunal already had sufficient mechanism to check mala fide applications.  Even if this pre-requisite is deemed essential to save a real estate developer from malicious applications, its retrospective application only adds to miseries of the allottees. A mere surge in applications and apprehensions of real estate developers cannot be a ground for curtailing the remedy of allottees. The legislature could have easily averted the hardships and anomalies had it adopted any of the above-suggested alternatives. Moreover, it is difficult to appreciate the mala fide intents of an allottee in an application for revival of the company wherein the applicant has invested his life savings to purchase an abode and the real estate developer has defaulted in handing over the possession. Thus, the amendment in Section 7 on the allottees of a real estate project was uncalled for, particularly with a retrospective effect.

VI. The middle way

In light of the abovesaid, it is also difficult to aver that the surge in applications has not severely affected the working of the real estate developers. The litigation costs and replies to multiple applications do severely affect the normal functioning of these companies. In such a situation where the legislature felt the existing mechanism as not sufficient to check the disruptions due to multiple applications it would have been reasonable to give the amendment a prospective application only i.e. application filed after 28.12.2019, provided it withstands the test of constitutionality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Further, the legislature could state that a minimum threshold is required to be met at the time of the first hearing before the Tribunal. Moreover, the legislature needs to find a way out for an authentic public record for a list of allottees, which will avoid unnecessary protraction of this efficient and speedy resolution proceedings due to hearings on this preliminary issue of whether the application meets the minimum threshold. It must be remembered that the proceedings under the Code are summary proceedings.

VII. Concluding remarks

Apart from other objections not subject of discussion in the present article i.e. the Ordinance and the amendment to Section 7 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, pending before the Supreme Court, the legislature has overviewed the above-noted consequent anomalies and hardships which is causing and is likely to continue causing grave injustice and hardship to the allottees of real estate project. The legislature may have intended to balance the equities of real estate developers, allottees, and the real estate market, but the legislature missed to appreciate the abovesaid anomalies and hardships caused to the already oppressed allottees and the retrospective applicability of the amendment runs it excessive.

In view of the authors, such a retraction by the legislature after recognising a right of the individual applicant dissuades faith reposed by the applicants, in the purported “beneficial legislation” like the Code. Such flickering enactments by the legislature makes applicants or litigants dissuade from such remedies, created for their benefit. The legislature should have, if deemed necessary, applied the amendment to future applications only. Additionally, the legislature could have easily avoided consequent anomalies by use of terms like “impleadment” instead of “modified”; stating that the pre-requisite criterion as, “….whichever is less, at the time of filing of the application” in the third proviso. Such legislation could contain the faith of the already oppressed allottees in such purported beneficial legislations who filed for initiation of the CIRP being mindful of the decision of the Court in Pioneer[21].

*Advocates, Supreme Court of India and High Court of Delhi

[1] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

[2] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018

[3] (2019) 8 SCC 416

[4] Ibid, paras 56-57

[5] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019

[6] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020

[7] 2020 SCC OnLine SC 384


[9] Business Today, “Real estate tops bankruptcy chart; construction, metals and textiles follow”, dated 19-2-2019

[10] Standing Committee On Finance (2019-2020), Sixth Report, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019 

[11] Pareekshit Bishnoi, “IBC Ordinance, 2019: Impleadment of Allottees in a Pending Application”, IndiaCorpLaw, dated 16-3-2020 

[12] Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416, para 86(ii)

[13] 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 46, para 33

[14] IB-1637 (ND)/2019, order dated 24-09-2019 (NCLT, New Delhi Bench), paras 5-6

[15] Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416, para 14

[16]Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416, para 56

[17] 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 421, para 15

[18] 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 46, para 55

[19]Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416, para 39

[20] 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 46, paras 33-37, 45-47 and 53-55

[21]Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Prem Narain, Presiding Member, has directed the developers of “Greenopolis” to refund homebuyers their amount deposited at the interest rate of 9% p.a. and in a few complaints the bench has asked for the possession to be handed over by 30-09-2020 with the occupancy certificate and with a delayed penalty of 6% p.a. on the deposited amount.

Consumer Complaints

Allottees of the project “Greenopolis” situated in Gurgaon alleged deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties — Three C Shelters (P) Ltd.

Original allottee booked an apartment in OP’s project for a consideration of Rs 87,16, 800/-, apartment was allotted and later the same was endorsed in favour of complainant.

OP’s failed to deliver the possession in 42 months inclusive of 6 months grace period. Till date, the complainant has paid Rs 75,96,776/- to OP’s.

Several complaints have been filed by homebuyers with regard to no delivery and possession of the apartments for which they have paid installments of a very huge amount.

Analysis and Decision

No breach of agreement by complainants | Entitled to relief under Sections 54 and 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Argument with regard to Sections 54 and 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, OPs relied on the Commission’s decision in DLF Southern Town (P) Ltd. v. Dipu C. Seminal, wherein the complainant had deposited only the booking amount and no installments were paid whereas in the present complaints installment have been paid upto reasonable limit and on no progress in construction, the payment was stopped later.

Force Majeure

Defence of force majeure by OPs cannot be taken as there was no ban on construction and OPs should have put their resources and managerial skills to bring water from outside to complete the construction in time.

Joint Project

Three C Shelters (P) Ltd. pleaded for force majeure conditions for the delay and on the other hand Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd. pleaded that Three C Shelters was responsible for delay in construction. Both of them had signed on the “Apartment buyer Agreement” and hence Commission stated that both of them were responsible for delay.

Apartment Buyer Agreement

Bench observed that the OP’s clearly have failed to complete the project and give the possession in time to the homebuyers as per the Apartment Buyer Agreement.

Hence allottees have the right to ask for a refund due to the inordinate delay which has been beyond 1 year, the possession was to be given in the year 2016.

No Forfeiture of earnest money

So far as the question of forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it is seen that the complainants are seeking refunds as the project has been inordinately delayed. Even though the RERA, Haryana has taken a meeting to expedite the project and Three C Shelters (P) Ltd. has agreed to complete the project in phases.

Commission noted that OPs have not paid EDC and IDC to the Government and it seems that the OPs were not serious in timely completing the project. Thus, in these circumstances, there can be no question of forfeiture of earnest money.

Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Diwan Singh, (2010) 14 SCC 770, observed that subsequent buyers are entitled to receive interest only after the date of endorsement in their favour.

In view of the above, Commission directed Three C Shelters to refund the amount at 9% interest per annum.

In one of the cases, Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd. is directed to complete the construction work and handover the possession till 30-09-2020 after obtaining an occupancy certificate, and it shall pay interest of 6% p.a. on the deposited amount.

If the possession is not delivered till 30-09-2020, the complainant shall be at liberty to take a refund of the total deposited amount Rs 77,58,581/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till actual payment. [Sanjay Gupta v. Three C Shelter (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 178, decided on 20-07-2020]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Bench comprising of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and M. Shreesha (Member) while addressing a complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act stated that:

“Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the unit, as the construction is yet to be completed even after a period of more than 6 years has lapsed from the date of booking.”

The present complaint was filed against the “Developer” and “Construction Company” under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In accordance with the facts of the case, Complainant had been looking for residential accommodation in Gurgaon, wherein he wanted to reside after his return from Tokyo, Japan. Complainant on his return to India booked a residential apartment of 5450 sq. ft. and paid an amount of Rs 4,12,98,926 by 03-09-2015.

It has been averred that, Flat Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the Developer and Complainant on 19-02-2013 and as per Clause 12 of the agreement, the possession of the apartment was to be delivered within 36 months with an additional grace period of 6 months, which ended on 19-08-2016.

Adding to the above, in December 2015, the complainant visited the site to see the development work and was shocked to see that the construction work had been completely stopped since January 2015. Complainant visited the corporate office of the developer and was informed that due to disputes with Construction Company, they had terminated the contract with them. The complainant was further assured that a new construction company would complete the balance work and the complainant shall receive the possession in terms of the agreement by February 2016 or at least within the extended period.

Again in January, 2017 complainant was disappointed to observe that no work was being carried out and he was assured by the officials of the “Developer” that the new construction company would complete the balance work. Once again in April 2018, on visiting the construction site he found that the site office was locked.

Thus, on multiple failures by the developer to respect the agreement in regard to the construction of the flat, Complainant had to send a legal notice to the Opposite Parties and further vexed with the attitude of the OP’s, the complainant approached the Commission.

Siddharth Yadav and Wasim Ashraf, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants argued that despite repeated attempts to contact the “Developer” and seeking information regarding the progress of construction, there was no response for the same.

Commission in view of the above, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court case in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725 and Kolkata West International City (P) Ltd. v. Devasis Rudra, (2019) CPJ 29 (SC), and opined in regard to the instant case that, “Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the unit, as the construction is yet to be completed even after a period of more than 6 years has lapsed from the date of booking.”

Further, the Commission added to its observation that, there has been a deficiency of service on behalf of the OP’s. However, since the amounts were paid to the “Developer” the liability is fastened on the developer and not the “Construction Company”.

With the above, Complainant is allowed in part directing the “Developer” to refund 4,12,98,926 with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of realisation. [Alok Kumar v. Golden Peacock Residency (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 314, decided on 06-09-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant, JJ has held the Amendment Act to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 made pursuant to a report prepared by the Insolvency Law Committee dated 26th March, 2018 does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The amendments so made deem allottees of real estate projects to be “financial creditors” so that they may trigger the Code, under Section 7 thereof, against the real estate developer. In addition, being financial creditors, they are entitled to be represented in the Committee of Creditors by authorised representatives.


The Amendment was challenged on ground that the treatment of allottees as financial creditors violates two facets of Article 14. One, that the amendment is discriminatory inasmuch as it treats unequals equally, and equals unequally, having no intelligible differentia; and two, that there is no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the Code.

On this the Court said that like other financial creditors, be they banks and financial institutions, or other individuals, all persons who have advanced monies to the corporate debtor should have the right to be on the Committee of Creditors.

“True, allottees are unsecured creditors, but they have a vital interest in amounts that are advanced for completion of the project, maybe to the extent of 100% of the project being funded by them alone.”

The Court further said that given the fact that allottees may not be a homogenous group, yet there are only two ways in which they can vote on the Committee of Creditors – either to approve or to disapprove of a proposed resolution plan.

“Sub-section (3A) goes a long way to ironing out any creases that may have been felt in the working of Section 25A in that the authorised representative now casts his vote on behalf of all financial creditors that he represents. If a decision taken by a vote of more than 50% of the voting share of the financial creditors that he represents is that a particular plan be either 145 accepted or rejected, it is clear that the minority of those who vote, and all others, will now be bound by this decision.”


The Court noticed that although a deeming provision is to deem what is not there in reality, thereby requiring the subject matter to be treated as if it were real, yet several authorities and judgments show that a deeming fiction can also be used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that might otherwise be uncertain. It held,

“the deeming fiction that is used by the explanation is to put beyond doubt the fact that allottees are to be regarded as financial creditors within the enacting part contained in Section 5(8)(f) of the Code.”


The Court further noticed that an explanation does not ordinarily enlarge the scope of the original Section. But if it does, effect must be given to the legislative intent notwithstanding the fact that the legislature has named a provision as an explanation. It, hence, held,

“the explanation was added by the Amendment Act only to clarify doubts that had arisen as to whether home buyers/allottees were subsumed within Section 5(8)(f). The explanation added to Section 5(8)(f) of the Code by the Amendment Act does not in fact enlarge the scope of the original Section as home buyers/allottees would be subsumed within Section 5(8)(f) as it originally stood.”


  • The Amendment Act to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 made pursuant to a report prepared by the Insolvency Law Committee dated 26th March, 2018 does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India.
  • The RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the Amendment Act. It is only in the event of conflict that the Code will prevail over the RERA. Remedies that are given to allottees of flats/apartments are therefore concurrent remedies, such allottees of flats/apartments being in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the Code.
  • Section 5(8)(f) as it originally appeared in the Code being a residuary provision, always subsumed within it allottees of flats/apartments. The explanation together with the deeming fiction added by the Amendment Act is only clarificatory of this position in law.

[Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1005, decided on 09.08.2019]