In Resolution Plan of Real Estate Company, No distinction can be made between Home Buyers who had approached RERA and obtained decree for refund and Other Homebuyers, both are remained the same as Homebuyers within a class – Vishal Chelani & Ors. Vs. Debashis Nanda – Supreme Court

In this case, some home buyers sought decree from UPRERA. In the Resolution Plan, a distinction was made between home buyers, who had opted or elected for other remedies such as i.e. applying before the RERA and having secured orders in their favor, and those who did not do so.

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) On a plain reading of Section 5(8)(f) no distinction is per se made out between different classes of financial creditors for the purposes of drawing a resolution plan.
(ii) The reasoning of the Mumbai Bench of NCLT “Mr. Natwar Agrawal (HUF) Vs. Ms. Ssakash Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd (2023) ibclaw.in 425 NCLT” is correct in the opinion of this Court.
(iii) It is only home buyers that can approach and seek remedies under RERA – no others. In such circumstances, to treat a particular segment of that class differently for the purposes of another enactment, on the ground that one or some of them had elected to take back the deposits together with such interest as ordered by the competent authority, would be highly inequitable.
(iv) Section 238 of the IBC contains a non obstante clause which gives overriding effect to its provisions. Consequently its provisions acquire primacy, and cannot be read as subordinate to the RERA Act.
(v) Set aside the NCLAT’s Order.

In Resolution Plan of Real Estate Company, No distinction can be made between Home Buyers who had approached RERA and obtained decree for refund and Other Homebuyers, both are remained the same as Homebuyers within a class – Vishal Chelani & Ors. Vs. Debashis Nanda – Supreme Court Read Post »