VISHAL CHELANI & ORS. versus DEBASHIS NANDA

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 1149 · Decided: 06-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
VISHAL CHELANI & ORS.
v.
DEBASHIS NANDA
(Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023)
OCTOBER 06, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The decision of the National Company Law 
Appellate Tribunal that the home buyer as benefi ciary of a decree by the 
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the order of the Resolution 
Professional proposing that they be treated diff erently from other home 
buyers allottees, does not call for interference, is under challenge.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.5(8)(f) explanation – 
Financial Creditor – Home buyers allottees in real estate project who 
secured the decree from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for a 
refund of their investment, if could be treated as fi nancial creditor:
Held: Under explanation to s.5(8)(f) home buyers and allottees of 
real estate projects were included in the class of “fi nancial creditors”, 
because fi nancial debt is owed to them – No distinction is per se made out 
between diff erent classes of fi nancial creditors for drawing a resolution 
plan – Resolution Professional’s view that once an allottee seeks remedies 
under RERA, and opts for return of money in terms of the order made in 
her favour, it is not open for her to be treated in the class of home buyer, 
cannot be accepted – Distinction made by the Resolution Professional is 
artifi cial and fails afoul of Art.14 – To treat a particular segment of that 
class diff erently 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 – Underlying claim of an aggrieved party is crystallized in the 
form of a Court order or decree, that does not alter or disturb the status of 
the allottees as fi nancial creditors – Furthermore, s. 238 IBC contains a 
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1149 : 2023 INSC 913
1149
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
non obstante clause which gives overriding eff ect to its provisions, thus, its 
provisions acquire primacy, and cannot be read as subordinate to the RERA 
Act – Thus, the impugned order is set aside – Home buyers are declared as 
fi nancial creditors within the meaning of s. 5(8)(f) explanation and entitled 
to be treated as such along with other home buyers/fi nancial creditors for the 
purposes of the resolution plan – Real Estate (Regulation And Development) 
Act, 2016 – s. 18. [Para 6, 8,9]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Mr. Natwar Agrawal (HUF) v. Ms. Ssakash Developers & Builders 
Pvt. Ltd. in CP(IB) No.21/MB-IV/2023 dated 02.08.2023 – approved.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2023 of the National 
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company 
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 991 of 2022.
Appearances:
Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Nattasha Garg, Thakur Ankit Singh, Varun 
M., Ms. Shristy Singh, Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Advs. for the Appellants.
Gunjesh Ranjan, Sidharth Sarthi, Anil Kumar, Shantanu Sagar, Prabhat 
R. Raj, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The appellants challenge a decision of the National Company Law 
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi1 (hereinafter referred to as “NCLAT”) 
which ruled that as benefi ciary of a decree by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate 
Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as “UPRERA”), the order of 
1 
 . Order dated 28.02.2023 by NCLAT, in C.A.(AT) No. 991/2022
1151
VISHAL CHELANI & ORS. v. DEBASHIS NANDA
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
the Resolution Professional (R.P.) proposing that they be treated diff erently 
from other home buyers allottees, does not call for interference. 
2. The brief facts are that the appellants are home buyers, who had opted 
for allotment in a real estate project of the respondent company (hereinafter 
referred to as “Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.” or “the respondent”.  Aggrieved 
by the delay in the completion of the project, the appellants approached the 
UPRERA which by its orders upheld this entitlement to refund amounts 
deposited by them, together with interest.  In the meantime, proceedings 
under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 
“IBC”) were initiated. In the course of proceedings after due consultations 
by the Committee of Creditors, a resolution

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.