Avenue 54 Welfare Association vs Sumer Buildcorp Private Limited & Anr.

The Respondent No.1 is the owner of an undivided 50% share in the plots of land bearing CTS Nos. H/401 and 402 and H/415 to 438 (“Plot A”) situated at S.V. Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400054, and the remaining undivided 50% share in Plot A is owned by Radius Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. (“REPPL”). Sumer Radius Realty Private Limited (Respondent No.2) is a joint venture company specifically incorporated by the Respondent No.1 and REPPL for the purpose of constructing and developing the Avenue 54 project (“the said Project”). The Respondent No.2 is the sole owner of the adjoining plots bearing CTS Nos. 397 and 398, known as the Ghia Compound Plot (“Plot B”), situated at S.V. Road, near Aristo Sapphire Building, Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400054. Plot A and Plot B are contiguous parcels of land (“said Plots”). Pursuant to a Development Agreement dated 29.06.2017 (“the said Development Agreement”), the Respondent No.1 and REPPL granted development rights in respect of Plot A to the Respondent No.2, with the development of Plot A and Plot B to be undertaken jointly as a single project. The Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 and REPPL are the promoters of the said Project (“the Promoters”).

Several flats were allotted by the Promoters to members of the Financial Creditor prior to the enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Thereafter, the Promoters jointly registered the project with MahaRERA under Registration No. P51800007149 as a single project comprising eight buildings in five towers, together with a clubhouse, common areas and other amenities. The allotments were made by the Promoters themselves, without any request by the homebuyers to allot through any particular promoter. The Promoters, being co-promoters, are jointly and severally liable to the homebuyers.

Between 2016 and 2018, the Promoters allotted flats to the members of the Financial Creditor, received payments in accordance with the prescribed schedules and issued allotment letters. All other homebuyers were issued identical allotment letters. Possession was assured within 24 months from the respective allotment letters, and in certain pre-RERA allotments, by 31 January 2020. After the coming into force of RERA, although possession was orally assured within 24 months, the allotment letters issued by Respondent No. 2 did not specify any possession date. At the time of registration with MahaRERA, the Promoters unilaterally revised the possession date to December 2023, without the consent of the homebuyers who were already allotted flats. The Promoters have failed to complete the project and hand over possession.

The Promoters availed various financial facilities from banks and financial institutions, and the project account was classified as a non-performing asset YES Bank, one of the financial creditors, took possession of the project under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by notice dated 18.10.2019. The project has remained completely stalled since October 2019, and possession continues to vest with YES Bank.

The project is being developed under Regulation 33(11) of the Development Control Regulations, 2034 and comprises eight buildings of over twenty floors each. As on date, four interconnected basements for all eight buildings have been constructed, seven out of twenty floors in Tower 2 and construction up to plinth level in Tower 3 have been completed, while no construction has commenced in the remaining towers. Owing to the failure of the Promoters to complete the project and hand over possession, the Petitioner filed Commercial Suit No. 101 of 2023 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which, by order dated 23.02.2023, restrained the Respondents from dealing with or creating any third-party rights in respect of the flats allotted to the homebuyers.

In the meantime, the corporate insolvency resolution process of REPPL was initiated by order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Company Petition No. 380/IBC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2021. Several homebuyers, being members of the Petitioner, filed claims before the Resolution Professional (RP) of REPPL. However, the claims of those homebuyers who were allotted flats by Corporate Debtors were rejected. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 2596 of 2023 has been filed challenging such rejection and seeking a consolidated, project-wise CIRP of all the Promoters, which is pending adjudication before this Tribunal.

In parallel, Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited has filed Company Petition No. 136/IBC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2022 and Company Petition No. 155/IBC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2022 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Respondents, which are pending adjudication before this Tribunal.

The Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Mustafa Doctor for the Petitioner has submitted that the Promoters have failed to complete the Project and hand over possession within 24 months from allotment. While most allotment letters do not specify a possession date, certain pre-RERA allotments stipulated 20.01.2020. The continuing non-completion and non-delivery of possession constitutes a continuing breach, giving rise to a recurring cause of action and a continuing period of limitation.

The Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the Project is presently not even 25– 30% complete and, even upon recommencement, would require at least three years for completion. Sanjay Chhabaria, promoter of REPPL and Corporate Debtor No.2, has been detained by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the YES Bank- Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited fraud. By press release dated 31.08.2022, the Enforcement Directorate confirmed attachment of assets aggregating approximately Rs. 251 crores, including the subject plot to the extent of Rs. 116.5 crores. In view of the complete stagnation since October 2019, the Promoters demonstrably lack the financial capacity and ability to complete the Project, including Towers 2 and 3.

The Ld. Senior Counsel further submits that the homebuyers are bona fide purchasers who have invested their life savings and continue to service housing loans without possession. In subvention cases, lenders are initiating coercive recovery against flat purchasers despite non-disbursement and non-possession. In this regard, Writ Petition Nos. 3345 of 2022, 2885 of 2023 and 2888 of 2023 are pending, and the Financial Creditor craves leave to rely upon the records thereof.

The Corporate Debtors and REPPL are co-promoters and have jointly registered the Project as a single housing project with MahaRERA. The Project is a consolidated and indivisible development, involving undivided and inter-linked plots, a common sanctioned layout under Regulation 33(11) of DCPR, 2034, structurally interconnected buildings and basements, common rehabilitation obligations under the SRA scheme, cross-tower allotments by all promoters and undivided attachment of land by the Enforcement Directorate to the extent of Rs. 116.5 crores. Any standalone or parallel CIRP would impair approvals, FSI, amenities and allotments, materially erode project value and duplicate costs. Accordingly, the Project can be revived only through a consolidated, project-wise CIRP and the Petitioner prays that the CIRP of REPPL be consolidated with that of Corporate Debtors in respect of the Project.

Furthermore, the Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Act, 1860, comprising purchasers of 98 flats in the Project “Avenue 54”. Out of 152 flats sold, it represents more than 60% of the homebuyers and therefore satisfies the eligibility requirements under Section 7 of the Code.

The debt and default have been submitted to the Information Utility, National E-Governance Services Limited, and Form C has been issued.

Pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2024, the Petitioner has filed an Additional Affidavit dated 06.06.2024 curing the defects noted by this Tribunal, namely: (i) authentication of Part-D of record of default, (ii) annexure of the society registration certificate, and (iii) specification of the date of default. In compliance, Form-D (record of default) is annexed as Exhibit-B and the society registration certificate as Exhibit-C. As allotments were issued to different homebuyers on different dates between 2016–2018, the date of default necessarily varies for each of the allottees. It is settled that a joint Section 7 application by homebuyers is maintainable if even one applicant satisfies the threshold and limitation requirements. In the present case, the allotment letter issued by Respondent No. 2 to Suman Sultania stipulates the possession date as 31.12.2023 and reflects consideration of Rs. 1,51,37,615/-, thereby satisfying the statutory threshold and default requirement.

Similarly, in the case of SBPL, the allotment letter issued to Manohar Sawlani and Rajni Sawlani (members of the Financial Creditor) records payment of Rs. 1,43,64,000/- and stipulates the RERA possession date as 31 December 2023. Accordingly, they also satisfy the requisite threshold.

Further and in the alternative, the Promoters themselves have declared 31 December 2023 as the date of completion of the Project, as reflected on the MahaRERA website. Admittedly, the Project has not been completed and possession has not been handed over to the members of the Financial Creditor till date. In law, in the case of homebuyers, default arises upon expiry of the promised date of possession and constitutes a continuing cause of action. Accordingly, 31.12.2023 is liable to be treated as the date of default and, in any event, the present Petition is not barred by limitation.

The Respondent No.1 denies any debt or liability to the Petitioner and specifically disputes the alleged amount of Rs. 203,27,66,369/-.

The Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Gaurav Joshi for the Respondent no.1 submits that prior to 2014, the Respondent No.1 owned the Santacruz property. In 2014–2015, Sanjay Chhabaria of the Radius Group approached the Respondent for development, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 was incorporated with 50% shareholding each of Respondent No. 1 and the Radius Group (through Sanjay Chhabaria and Ritu Chhabria).

The Ld. Senior Counsel submits that under deeds executed between 2015 and 2017, the Santacruz property came to be jointly owned in equal shares by Respondent No. 1 and REPPL, while the adjoining Ghia Compound was vested in Respondent No. 2. By a Development Agreement dated 29.06.2017, exclusive development rights were granted to Respondent No. 2, and Respondent No. 1 and Radius Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. were entitled only to consideration and area share. The project was therefore not a joint development and Respondent No. 1 was not responsible for completion.

Separate allotment letters were issued by each entity for its respective area share. Of the 98 members of the Petitioner Society, only 25 were allotted flats by the Respondent No.1

The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1, alleges that it was defrauded by the Radius Group, YES Bank, Sanjay Chhabaria and Ritu Chhabria. Sanjay Chhabaria was thereafter arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Yes Bank–DHFL matter.

Although, in Commercial Suit No. 101 of 2023 filed in January 2023, the Petitioner pleaded that construction was stalled since 2019 and that allotments were made during 2012–2018, in the present Petition it is asserted that the first flat was purchased in January 2016 and that allotments were made between 2016–2018, reflecting inconsistent stands. Owing to Respondent No. 2’s failure to perform and complete the project, Respondent No. 1 terminated the unregistered Development Agreement by advocate’s notice dated 27.04.2023. The present Petition was thereafter filed on 24.03.2024.

Respondent No.1 has filed IA No. 6034 of 2024 raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Petition, inter alia, on the following grounds:

Section 7 of the Code and Rule 4(1) read with Form-I contemplate initiation of CIRP only against a single corporate debtor.

The Petition proceeds on an erroneous premise of joint development by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 and REPPL, whereas the Development Agreement stood terminated on 27.04.2023.

The MahaRERA registration stands solely in favour of Respondent No.2; Respondent No.1 is only an area-share holder. There was no joint development and no basis for a consolidated CIRP.

The parties are not intrinsically interlinked, as evident from separate allotment letters.

There is no financial debt owed by Respondent No.1 and, in any event, Respondent No.1 has never refused to refund the booking amounts.

Without prejudice, the Petition is otherwise not maintainable on the following grounds:

The alleged default is failure to hand over possession within 24 months from the respective allotment letters. Most allotments were issued in 2016 and 2017 and the alleged default would, at the latest, arise in 2018–2019.

The present Petition filed in March 2024 is ex facie barred by limitation under Section 238A of the Code read with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even after giving effect to the exclusion granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020.

A substantial number of allottees are speculative investors holding multiple units and do not qualify as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f). The Petition is a misuse of the insolvency process.

The Petitioner has already instituted proceedings before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under RERA, MOFA and the Specific Relief Act seeking substantially the same reliefs. Invocation of Section 7 on the same cause of action amounts to impermissible forum shopping and abuse of process.

The Petitioner has failed to establish the existence of a financial debt or any default. Respondent No.1 has always been willing to refund the amounts received. The Petition is an attempt to use the Code as a recovery mechanism and, if admitted, would seriously prejudice Respondent No.1’s other ongoing projects and employees.

The Petition proceeds on an erroneous assumption of joint and several liability. Respondent No.1 is merely a co-owner/area-share holder and is not responsible for development or execution of the project. Without prejudice, Respondent No.1 reiterates its willingness to refund the amounts received and grant exit to the allottees.

Additionally, the Respondent, in the arguments, has also raised following issues:

Maintainability: The Section 7 petition filed through an association is not maintainable in view of Elegna Coop. Housing & Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss ARC Ltd (2026 SCC OnLine SC 82). It is further contended that there is non-compliance with the Hon’ble NCLAT order dated 26.11.2025, as only 14 consolidated affidavits have been filed instead of individual affidavits, and no independent authorisations have been produced; hence, the defect in authorisation remains uncured. Since Section 7 requirements must be satisfied at the time of filing, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Discretionary Non-Admission: The project stalled due to factors beyond Respondent No. 1’s control, including the incarceration of Mr. Sanjay Chabbaria and attachment proceedings. Relying on Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd.,(2022) 8 SCC 352 and Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank, it is contended that the petition ought not to be admitted in the exercise of discretion.

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2, Mr. Nausher Kohli submits that the Petitioner has served Respondent No. 2 only a copy of the Additional Affidavit dated 04.06.2024, without the annexures.

Respondent No. 2 has filed IA No. 5195 of 2024 challenging the maintainability of the present Petition, which is ex facie contrary to law and filed with mala fide intent.

The Ld. Counsel submits that by letter dated 11.09.2024, Respondent No. 2 made a without-prejudice offer to repay Rs. 93,01,12,375/- (being the amounts purportedly disbursed by allottees at Sr. Nos. 26–75 of Exhibit-F), which was acknowledged by the Petitioner’s advocates but elicited no response. Further, a majority of the Petitioner’s members have already lodged and had their claims admitted in the CIRP of Radius Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. (“REPPL”). The Petitioner therefore lacks locus, and its silence evidences mala fides.

The Ld. Counsel further submits that the present joint Petition against two corporate debtors is not maintainable, as neither Section 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 nor Rule 4(1) of the 2016 Rules permits initiation of CIRP against more than one corporate debtor in a single application. The Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

The Petition is further barred by Section 14 of the Code, as REPPL is already under CIRP pursuant to the order dated 06.09.2021 and the land forming part of the Avenue-54 project constitutes its principal asset. The present proceedings, despite the Petitioner’s admitted participation in REPPL’s CIRP, impermissibly affect such assets and are hit by the statutory moratorium. Any reliance on CoC minutes permitting a proposed consolidated CIRP cannot override Section 14.

The project land was acquired by Respondent No. 1 on 07.12.2009 and one-half thereof was transferred to REPPL. Respondent No. 2 was incorporated on 13.07.2015 as a joint-venture SPV of Respondent No. 1 and REPPL. Under the Development Agreement of April 2017, exclusive development rights were granted to Respondent No. 2, while Respondent No. 1 and REPPL retained substantial area and economic interests, Respondent No. 2 being entitled only to a limited “Developer’s Allocation”.

Respondent No. 2 commenced construction on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and REPPL and each entity accepted bookings for its respective allocation. The project was registered under RERA on 17.07.2017 and the registration was modified on 08.09.2021, reflecting a revised completion date of 31.12.2024.

Despite, the members of the Petitioner undertaking an obligation to pay the entire consideration amount for the flats allotted to them, they have failed to deposit the same. On the contrary they have instituted the captioned petition claiming the consideration amount as the ‘amount in default’. The Respondent No.2 further submits that the Petitioner consists of speculative investors, who are not willing to take possession of the flats allotted to them, but are merely adopting coercive measures.

Respondent No. 2 submits that Respondent No. 1 and REPPL are the owners of the project land, and Respondent No. 2 was only entrusted with construction under the Development Agreement, which was terminated by Respondent No. 1 by notice dated 27.04.2023. Notwithstanding Clause 18 of the Development Agreement prohibiting termination, Respondent No. 1 has purportedly terminated the agreement, though, even in case of any alleged default by Respondent No. 2, the only remedy available to Respondent No. 1 was to seek specific performance. Upon such termination, all development rights have reverted to Respondent No. 1 and REPPL, and Respondent No. 2 is no longer concerned with the construction or completion of the Avenue-54 project.

Respondent No. 2 further submits that it has committed no default towards the Petitioner and had not promised delivery of any flats prior to 31.12.2024. In any event, the concept of “project-wise insolvency” is alien to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

In addition to the above, the Respondent no.2, has contended that the present Petition is barred by Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as Radius Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. has been undergoing CIRP since 06.09.2021 and the project land constitutes its sole asset, and reliance on CoC minutes dated 26.12.2023 cannot override the statutory moratorium. It is further submitted that, under the Development Agreement, Respondent No. 2 was entitled only to a limited developer’s allocation, while Respondent No. 1 and REPPL retained the substantial constructed area, evidencing that Respondent No. 2 acted merely as a developer. Additionally, the arrest of Sanjay Chhabaria, who was managing day-to-day operations, disrupted the project; despite efforts by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to arrange funding and engage with allottees, the Petition came to be filed, following which Respondent No. 1 terminated the Development Agreement on 27.04.2023 citing delay.

The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 1 had filed an IA No.6034 of 2024 and Respondent No. 2 had filed IA No. 5195 of 2024 (collectively as “Maintainability Applications”) challenging the maintainability of the Company Petition. The Petitioner had filed its affidavits in reply to both the Maintainability Applications. This Tribunal had vide a common order dated 12.09.2025 dismissed these maintainability Applications thereby rejecting contentions of Respondents on maintainability of Company Petition.

Both Respondents preferred appeals before the Hon’ble NCLAT, being Company Appeal (AT) (INS) Nos. 1573 and 1572 of 2025. The Hon’ble NCLAT, by a common judgment and order dated 26.11.2025, disposed of the said appeals, inter alia, by declining to interfere with the order dated 12.09.2025 and permitting the Respondent Association to file individual affidavits of homebuyers, within seven days, confirming their identity and authorisation in favour of the applicants, upon receipt of which the Adjudicating Authority was directed to proceed with the Section 7 application in accordance with law.

In compliance with the aforesaid order, the affidavits of the homebuyers were filed before this Tribunal on 01.12.2025. The Respondents thereafter preferred Civil Appeal No. 15026 of2025 and Civil Appeal No. 15088 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Vide an order dated 06.01.2026, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India refused to interfere with the orderof the NCLAT dated 26.11.2025.

In response to the Affidavit in Reply of the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner submits that:

That the Petition is maintainable in so far as threshold prescribed under Section 7 of the IBC Code is concerned;

That various Members of the Petitioner Association have paid more than Rs.1 crore, thus resulting in the existence of a financial debt;

That there exists a financial debt and default of the Respondents;

The contention of Respondent No. 1 that it is neither responsible for the delay nor a co-promoter is denied and is contrary to its own conduct, including termination of development rights, which itself impeded completion. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and REPPL are joint co-promoters and are jointly and severally liable to complete the Project. Inter se disputes between promoter groups are irrelevant to homebuyers.

The objection that the requirements of Section 7 are not satisfied is untenable. The eligibility of the Petitioners, existence of financial debt and occurrence of default already stand concluded by orders of this Tribunal, affirmed in appeal and thereafter not interfered with. The present Petition therefore merits admission.

The alleged willingness of Respondent No. 1 to refund amounts is misconceived. These proceedings are not for recovery. The homebuyers seek possession of their flats, and the continuing default is the failure to complete the Project and hand over possession. A refund offer neither cures the default nor can it be forced upon the allottees, who have expressly rejected it and affirmed their intent to take possession by filing affidavits pursuant to the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

In addition to the above submissions, the Petitioner through its Written submission has argued as under : The reliance on Elegna Co-op Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 82, is misplaced, as the said decision pertained to an intervention by a society without proof of authorisation and does not apply to the present case where the financial creditors themselves have authorised the Petition.

As the defences of Respondent No. 2 are identical to those of Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner reiterates and adopts its Rejoinder dated 17.01.2026. Without prejudice, and even on Respondent No. 2’s own case:

The Petition satisfies the Section 7 threshold. Several members have paid more than Rs. 1 crore. Respondent No. 2 has admitted the debt and default in handing over possession. Despite service of the Additional Affidavit on 04.07.2024 and again on 07.01.2025, no reply has been filed and the contents stand deemed admitted.

Payments were linked to construction milestones. Since the Project has been completely stalled since October 2019 and no demand notices were raised, there is no default by the members of the Petitioner Association.

The alleged termination of the Development Agreement and the plea that Respondent No. 2 is no longer concerned with the Project are denied as sham and mala fide. Respondent No. 2 continues to be reflected as a promoter with MahaRERA, continues to incur project expenses and remains liable for project borrowings.

We have carefully considered the matter.

The present Petition has been filed under Section 7 of the Code seeking initiation of CIRP in respect of the project ‘Avenue-54’ undertaken by the Corporate Debtors. Opposing the present Petition, the Corporate DebtorNo.1 has raised the following issues:

The Petitioner being an Association is not eligible to file petition under section 7 of IBC.

The threshold under Section 7 of IBC related to the number of allottees not met.

There is no default on the part of the Corporate Debtors.

The Petition is barred by limitation.

The Petition cannot be filed against multiple Corporate Debtors.

The Petitioner consists of Speculative Investors and not genuine Homebuyers.

The present Petition has been filed for Insolvency Resolution of the Project and not against the Corporate Debtors.

The filing of this Petition is mere attempt of Forum shopping.

A part of the said plots, forms part of the assets of REPPL which is under CIRP and hence hit by moratorium.

No obligation/ default on part of the Corporate Debtors since Development Agreement stood terminated on 27.04.2023.

Non-compliance regarding filing of Individual Affidavits as directed by the Hon’ble NCLAT.

Additionally, the Corporate Debtor No.2 has raised following issue:

The ‘Individual affidavits’ filed are not in accordance with the filing requirement as mandated under Part XVI of the NCLT Rules, 2016and that affidavits filed are factually and technically defective rendering the present petition not maintainable.

It is pertinent to note that the Corporate Debtors had filed two separate Interlocutory Applications (‘IAs’) bearing IA No. 6034 of 2024 and IA No. 5195 of 2024, challenging the maintainability of this Company Petition. Both the IAs were dismissed and disposed of by this Tribunal vide combined order dated 12.09.2025. In these IAs the Applicants (Corporate Debtors in the present Petition) had raised following issues:

The Petitioner being an Association is not eligible to file Petition under section 7 of IBC.

The threshold under Section 7 of IBC related to the number of allottees not met.

There is no default on the part of the Corporate Debtors.

The threshold under Section 4 of IBC is not met.

The Petition is barred by limitation

The Petition cannot be filed against multiple Corporate Debtors.

Further, the common order dated 12.09.2025, passed in these two IAs was challenged by the Corporate Debtors in separate Company Appeals (AT) (INS) No. 1573 of 2025 and 1572 of 2025 (‘said Appeals’), before the Hon’ble NCLAT, wherein, the only issue agitated was regarding the eligibility of an Association to file the petition under section 7 of IBC and the other issues were not agitated before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.

Also, the Hon’ble NCLAT vide order dated 26.11.2025, have disposed of the said Appeals, observing/directing as under:

Such order of the Hon’ble NCLAT was further challenged by the Corporate Debtor No.1 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.01.2026 passed in C.A. No 15088 of 2025, disposed of the appeal, observing as under:

In view of aforesaid judgement/order of the Hon’ble NCLAT and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that no interference has been caused in respect of the findings returned in the order dated 12.09.2025 in respect of the IAs and therefore it cannot be inferred that the issues that have not even been agitated before the Hon’ble NCLAT could be open to be re-agitated before this Tribunal again. However, the Respondents herein (the Applicants in the above IAs), have raised the issues as noted herein above (para 10.2) which substantially include issues raised in the IAs. In respect of the such issues, which have already been decided by us vide order dated 12.09.2025, it is noted and stated that since there has been no change in the facts of the case as also there is no change in the law, therefore, there is no need to reconsider/revisit those issues raised by the Corporate Debtors and the findings returned in respect of such issues remain the same. However, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 12.09.2025, dealing with such issues, are extracted herein below for the purposes of completeness:

In respect of this issue finding returned in our order dated 12.09.2025 is as under:

Further, the said issue being agitated in Appeal by the Applicants in IA (Corporate Debtors in the present Petition), was decided by Hon’ble NCLAT in their order dated 26.11.2025, wherein it upheld the eligibility of the Petitioner to file the present petition and stated as under:

Moreover, in support of its contention regarding non-eligibility of the Petitioner Association, the Corporate Debtor has relied on the judgement passed in “Elegna Co-Op. Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Anr.,Civil Appeal No. 10261 of 2025 with Civil Appeal No. 10012 of 2025”,wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue as to whether a society or association of homebuyers possesses locus standi to intervene in proceedings under Section 7 of the Code, either at the admission stage or at the appellate stage. Deciding the said issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, as per GLAS Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran and Ors., (2024) ibclaw.in 275 SC, at pre-admission stage, Section 7 proceedings are in personam between applicant creditor and corporate debtor; no right of audience exists for other creditors or unrelated third parties. A financial creditor under Section 5(7) must be a person to whom a financial debt is owed. While the Explanation to Section 5(8)(f) deems individual allottees to be financial creditors, it does not extend such status to societies or associations unless the entity is itself a creditor in its own right, or is statutorily recognised as an authorised representative under the Code. Further, Section 7 proceedings are bipartite at admission; unrelated third parties have no right of audience. In this regard, it is noted that the reliance placed by the Corporate Debtors on the said judgement is misplaced since in the above said matter, the Association/ society of Homebuyers had pleaded to intervene in the proceedings of a section 7 Petition, even though there was no direct debt relationship in the said matter. However, in the present case, the Petitioner is Association of Homebuyers, brought into existence for the sole purpose of filing the present Petition as the Financial Creditor, having no independent dues/claim of its own, separate from its members and has the right to initiate insolvency resolution as a representative of the allottees. Further, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble NCLAT dated 26.11.2025, authorisation letters of the allottees in the favour of the Association have been bought on record. Accordingly, the issue raised by the Corporate Debtors in respect of ineligibility of the Petitioner is not found to be acceptable.

In respect of this issue finding returned in our order dated 12.09.2025 is as under:

In respect of this issue finding returned in our order dated 12.09.2025 is as under:

In respect of this issue finding returned in our order dated 12.09.2025 is as under:

In respect of this issue finding returned in our order dated 12.09.2025 is as under:

Further, the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor No.1 fairly submitted that this issue is covered against him, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Satinder Singh Bhasin vs Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 13628 of 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

The Additional issues raised by the Corporate Debtors are being dealt with as under:

The Corporate Debtors have contended that a substantial number of allottees are speculative investors, allegedly holding multiple units and having remitted significant amounts in lump sum, thereby indicating an investment intent and disentitling them from being classified as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) of the Code. In this regard it is useful to refer judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma &Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1972), wherein it was held that

The above judgement specifies that a speculative investor is one who, viewed holistically from the terms of allotment, payment structure, and overall conduct, was never genuinely interested in taking possession and is primarily concerned with refund or profit. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in the above matter set down the criteria to identify speculative investors and two elements that are usually associated with speculative investors i.e. (i) expectation of unusually high profits and (ii) activity in the nature of the business or trade. The test, therefore, is whether the allottee intends to “jump ship” and evade possession, rather than seek completion of the project. However, in the present case, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate the existence of any buy-back arrangement or a clause providing for assured returns or repayment with interest in the allotment letters. In the absence of such indicia, the allegation of speculative intent remains unsubstantiated. Insofar as the contention that certain allottees have booked more than one unit is concerned, the same, by itself, cannot lead to the conclusion that such allottees are speculative investors. The decision to purchase multiple units is a matter of individual choice, and mere multiplicity of allotments does not satisfy the test laid down in Mansi Brar Fernandes (supra) for determining speculative investment. Further, the assertion that payment of a substantial amount in a lump sum reflects a speculative investment is vague, unsupported by evidence, and fails to meet the criteria articulated in Mansi Brar Fernandes (supra). Accordingly, the said contention is devoid of merit.

Moreover, the Petitioner in the present case, approached this Tribunal not to seek refunds from the Corporate Debtor but with the objective to initiate CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtors so that a new management may then carry out and complete the Avenue 54 Project and deliver the flats/units to them. Thus it cannot be said that the Petitioner consists of speculative investors.

The Corporate Debtor no.1 has contended that CIRP can be filed against the Corporate Debtor and not against a project of the Corporate Debtor. It is observed that this issue as to whether Project-wise initiation of CIRP permitted under law, has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble NCLAT. In the case of “Surender Singh v. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 266 of 2026”, the Hon’ble NCLAT have held that:

Further, the Hon’ble NCLAT in Navin M. Raheja v. Vipul Jain &Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2168 of 2024, reiterated the principle laid down in Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills and reaffirmed in Gagan Tandon’s case, namely that where the Financial Creditor/allottees have exposure only to a specific real estate project, the CIRP must remain confined to that project alone. Applying the said principle, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held that since the concerned allottees pertained only to ‘Raheja Shilas’ (Low Rise), the CIRP was liable to be restricted to the said project only. It was further clarified that such project-specific CIRP would not preclude allottees of other projects, financial creditors in class, or other financial institutions from independently pursuing appropriate proceedings under Section 7 in respect of the remaining projects of the Corporate Debtor, which applications would be considered in accordance with law.

The above Company Petition (IB)284(MB)/2024 is admitted and initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is ordered in respect of ‘Avenue- 54’ Project undertaken by the Corporate Debtors i.e. Sumer Buildcorp Private Limited and Sumer Radius Realty Private Limited.

This Bench appoints Aegis Resolution Services Private Limited, having Registration No: IBBI/IPE-0118/IPA-1/2022-22/50041, email: [email protected]; Address: 1104/D Wing, 11th Floor, Dreams-II Complex, LBS Marg, Bhandup (W), Mumbai - 400078, as the Interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, to carry out the functions as mentioned under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the initial CIRP cost by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Interim Resolution Professional appointed herein, immediately upon communication of this Order.

That this Bench hereby directs operation of moratorium under section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and prohibits the following:

the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings in relation to the Project ‘Avenue 54’, including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority against the said project;

transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtors any of the assets relating to ‘Avenue 54’ projector any legal right or beneficial interest therein;

any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtors in respect of the property relating to ‘Avenue 54’ project, including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;

the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the Corporate Debtor in relation to ‘Avenue 54’ project.

That the supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor sin relation to the ‘Avenue 54’ project, as may be specified, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.

The provisions of sub-section (1) shall however, not apply to such transactions, agreements or other arrangement as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority, and to a surety in a contract of guarantee to the Corporate Debtors in relation to the ‘Avenue 54’ project.

That the order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of pronouncement of this order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process of the ‘Avenue 54’ project.

That the public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of the Code.

During the CIRP period, the management with respect to the Avenue 54 project will vest in the IRP/RP. With regards to ‘Avenue 54’ project, the directors and employees of the Corporate Debtors shall provide all documents in their possession and furnish every information in their knowledge to the IRP/RP.

This order is being passed in an Application filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 with a view to bring about resolution of the Corporate Debtor with focus on specific real-estate Project in question and the energies of the IRP/ RP are expected to be channelized accordingly.