The Bar Council of India does not permit advertisement or solicitation by advocates in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.khaitanco.com, you acknowledge and confirm that you are seeking information relating to Khaitan & Co of your own accord and that there has been no form of solicitation, advertisement or inducement by Khaitan & Co or its members. The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement. No material/information provided on this website should be construed as legal advice. Khaitan & Co shall not be liable for consequences of any action taken by relying on the material/information provided on this website. The contents of this website are the intellectual property of Khaitan & Co.

Please accept the above


See all results for ""

Allottees in real estate projects cannot be coerced into settlements by NCLT - Supreme Court



The Supreme Court (SC) in its judgment dated 14 December 2021, in E S Krishnamurthy & Ors. v. M/s Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3325/2020, circumscribed the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal/NCLT) and/or the Appellate Authority (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal/NCLAT) in adjudication of applications instituted by allottees in real estate projects under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).



The Respondent was engaged in construction of real estate projects and was undertaking the development of 100 acres of agricultural land (herein after referred to as “Project”) and was obligated to convey and register developed plots in the Project to the allottees/investors on or before 2016. In the event of failure to convey the plots, the Respondent undertook to repay the entire amounts along with interest component. The Respondent thereafter sought multiple extensions for conveying the developed plots to the allottees, but admittedly failed to honour its obligations. Consequently on 26.04.2019, nearly 83 aggrieved allottees/investors (including 11 appellants before the SC) instituted  proceedings under Section 7 of the Code before the NCLT, Bengaluru, seeking initiation of CIRP of the Respondent due to default in making the re-payment of an amount of INR 33,84,32,493/-. It may be noted that the  proceedings were instituted prior to the amendments  to Section 7 of the Codewherein the threshold of 10% or 100 home-buyers/allottees (whichever is less), was introduced for filing of a petition under Section 7 of the Code by allottees/ home-buyers.


Even though the Respondent could not enter into settlement with all allottees, the NCLT passed an order on 28.02.2020 (NCLT Order) rejecting the petition, and directed the Respondent to settle the disputes with remaining allottees within a period of 3 months. The NCLT clarified that if any party was aggrieved by the settlement, then such party could approach NCLT in accordance with law. The NCLT reasoned that the Respondent had attempted to settle the disputes bona fide, and further noted that settlement with remaining applicants before NCLT was ongoing, which was a preferable alternative to initiation of CIRP of the Respondent.


The NCLT Order was challenged before NCLAT by the Appellants, and the NCLAT dismissed the appeal vide Impugned Judgment dated 30.07.2020 (Impugned Judgment). The NCLAT was satisfied that the NCLT Order had sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the allottees, as settlement efforts were being undertaken at the “pre-admission stage”, and even if there were aggrieved parties, they could approach NCLT.


The Impugned Judgment was challenged before the SC by 17 Appellants, including 11 Appellants who had originally instituted the proceedings before the NCLT. In addition to this, two applications seeking impleadment in the Civil Appeal were instituted by 10 individuals, similarly placed to the Appellants.



Whether the NCLT and NCLAT  have jurisdiction under the Code to reject an application filed by homebuyers/real estate allottees under Section 7 for admission of insolvency and issue directions to the parties to settle their disputes with the corporate debtor?



The SC reiterated the settled position in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [(2018) 1 SCC 407], viz. that following the inquiry contemplated under Section 7 of the Code, there are only two courses of action available to an NCLT - which is to either admit the application or to reject the application. It was held that the statute does not provide for NCLT to pass any other orders, and certainly NCLT cannot compel creditors to settle disputes with the corporate debtor in such proceedings.


The Code is a self-contained code, and the statute prescribes and circumscribes the ambit of the respective jurisdictions of NCLT and NCLAT. NCLT and NCLAT cannot exercise powers as courts of equity.


In the result, Civil Appeal was allowed and the Impugned Judgment of NCLAT and NCLT were set aside. The SC remanded the proceedings to the NCLT for fresh consideration.



It is widely known that a large number of cases are pending before the various NCLT benches across India. Even though NCLT is statutorily mandated to ascertain the default within a period of 14 days in an application under Section 7 of the Code, however, due to the huge backlog of cases, admission applications remain pending for several years, defeating the objective of the Code.

The judgment reiterates the principle of time-bound resolution in insolvency proceedings and restricts the grounds of inquiry available to an NCLT in an application under Section 7 of the Code. The judgment seeks to bring in certainty in the approach that an NCLT should follow at the admission stage of insolvency proceedings.

-     Prateek Kumar (Partner), Rohit Ghosh (Senior Associate), Smriti Nair (Associate)

For any queries please contact: editors@khaitanco.com

Prateek Kumar (partners)

We have updated our Privacy Policy, which provides details of how we process your personal data and apply security measures. We will continue to communicate with you based on the information available with us. You may choose to unsubscribe from our communications at any time by clicking here.

For private circulation only

The contents of this email are for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the professional views of Khaitan & Co and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. Khaitan & Co disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause.

© 2021 Khaitan & Co. All rights reserved.


One Forbes
3rd & 4th Floors, No. 1
Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg
Fort, Mumbai 400 001


119/65, First Floor
Dr Radhakrishnan Salai
Chennai 600 004,


Max Towers
7th & 8th Floors
Sector 16B, Noida
Gautam Buddh Nagar
201 301 India


Ocean Financial Centre
#37-02 10 Collyer
37th Floor Quay
Raffles Place 049315,