AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition concerns a group of homebuyers who invested in residential flats promoted by Respondents 3 and 4 (developers/builders). Alleging severe delays and financial hardship, the purchasers approached the Supreme Court seeking protection of their interests. The matter is also connected with ongoing proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where a Committee of Creditors is looking into the developers’ financial affairs. This order results from a hearing on writ petitions—WP (C) No. 1144 of 2017 and Diary No. 37490 of 2017—during which the Court issued interim directions aimed at safeguarding the homebuyers’ rights and ensuring delivery or refund of their investments.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners (Homebuyers)

  • They have invested their hard-earned money in the project and are now in a “pathetic condition” because the flats have not been fully delivered.
  • Requested that the Court direct the developers to deposit a certain amount to secure the purchasers’ interests.

Developer (Respondent 3/4)

  • Represented by senior counsel who asserted that 90 % of the flats in the first phase are complete and ready for delivery.

Noida Authority (Respondent 7)

  • Indicated willingness to issue occupancy and no-objection certificates if 15 % of the outstanding amount is provisionally deposited with it.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court’s analysis centers on balancing the immediate interests of homebuyers with the ongoing insolvency process involving the developers.

  • Recognising the financial distress of purchasers, the Court appointed senior counsel Mr. Shekhar Naphade, with Ms. Shubhangi Tuli, to represent homebuyers before the Committee of Creditors constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
  • An amicus curiae, Mr. Pawan Shree Agarwal, was appointed to assist the Court and tasked with creating an online portal for refund applications.
  • The Court accepted the developer’s statement that most flats in the first phase were complete but required tangible financial commitment: a deposit of 10 % of dues owed to Respondent 7 within four weeks.
  • To expedite possession, the Court linked handover of finished flats to the issuance of occupancy/no-objection certificates, directing that possession be given immediately once those certificates are in place.
  • Recognising unfinished units, the Court allowed affected buyers to seek refunds through the soon-to-be-created portal.
  • To ensure compliance, the Court ordered non-institutional directors of the developer company to appear personally at the next hearing and directed the developer to advance Rs 5 lakhs to the amicus for administrative expenses.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED.

Key operative orders:

  • The developer must deposit 10 % of its dues to Respondent 7 within four weeks.
  • Upon grant of occupancy/no-objection certificates, completed flats are to be handed over immediately to buyers, who may finish remaining works themselves.
  • An online portal will be created for buyers seeking refunds on unconstructed units; the developer must fund this exercise with Rs 5 lakhs.
  • Directors of the developer (other than institutional directors) are ordered to attend the next hearing on 17-1-2018.

Implications are primarily practical: they secure partial financial relief, facilitate immediate possession for many buyers, and create a structured avenue for refunds. The order does not establish new legal precedent but demonstrates the Court’s proactive approach to consumer protection in real-estate insolvency scenarios.

    Bikram Chatterji And Others v. Union Of India And Others

    Order

    1. Diary No. 37490 of 2017 is taken on Board. Issue notice in WP (C) No. 1144 of 2017 and Diary No. 37490 of 2017.

    2. We have heard Mr M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr Pawan Shree Agarwal, Advocate is appointed in this case as Amicus Curiae.

    3. The learned counsel for the homebuyers submitted, they have spent their hardearned money in investing in the purchase of flats for which schemes were floated by the builders/developers, Respondents 3 and 4. Though there is some dispute with regard to who is directly responsible, we do not intend to comment on the same at the present stage. In a similar matter relating to another project we had appointed Mr Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel to represent the cause of the homebuyers before the Committee of Creditors constituted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short “the Code”). In the present case we also nominate Mr Shekhar Naphade with Ms Shubhangi Tuli to take up the cause of the homebuyers before the said authority. Mr Naphade along with Ms Tuli is granted liberty to interact with the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to protect the interest of the homebuyers.

    4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the homebuyers are in a pathetic condition and, therefore, certain amount should be directed to be deposited by the developers/builders. At this juncture, Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the developer submitted that 90% flats are complete and ready for delivery in the first phase. Mr Vishnu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Noida submitted, it would not hesitate to give the occupancy certificate and no-objection certificate if 15% amount is provisionally deposited with them.

    5. After hearing at length, we are inclined to direct as follows:

    5.1. The respondent builder shall deposit 10% of the dues of Respondent 7 before it within four weeks hence.

    5.2. The phase in respect of which occupancy certificate and no-objection certificate, if granted, the possession of flats shall be handed over to the respective flat owners.

    5.3. The flat owners will be at liberty to complete the finishing work, if they feel so advised.

    5.4. The homebuyers for whom the flats are not yet been constructed and are interested in refund, can submit their applications to the portal which is to be created by Mr Pawan Shree Agarwal.

    5.5. Mr Pawan Shree Agarwal shall create the portal and inform the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent developer. The Advocate-on-Record for the developer shall give a sum of Rs 5 lakhs by way of bank draft to Shri Pawan Shree Agarwal so that he can meet the expenses. The directors, other than institutional directors, of the developer company shall remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing.

    6. List the matter on Wednesday, 17-1-2018.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Bikram Chatterji And Others v. Union Of India And Others
    (Nov 22, 2017)