AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The appellants, six homebuyers, filed IA No. 1313/2026 before the National Company Law Tribunal seeking various reliefs, including declarations regarding legal possession, exclusion of their units from the liquidation estate, and directions to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority for issuing Occupation Certificates and resuming registries. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application on 30.03.2026 without discussing its merits, citing that the appellants had previously withdrawn a similar application (IA No. 6154/2025) and that the Resolution Professional had already filed an application (IA No. 4463/2024) seeking similar reliefs. The appellants challenged this dismissal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Applications to condone delays of 6 days in filing and 14 days in refiling the appeal were also filed.
Law Points
Whether the withdrawal of a previous application without a decision on merits operates as res judicata barring a subsequent application. Whether the Adjudicating Authority is justified in dismissing an application without considering its merits solely because the Resolution Professional has filed an application seeking similar reliefs.
Acts & Articles
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (Regulation 18(4)); IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (Regulation 4E); Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Judgments Referred
Not discussed in this judgment.
Obiter Dicta
The Tribunal observed that issuing notice to the Respondent could be dispensed with, as the order intended to be passed would not affect the rights of the Respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
An application that is withdrawn without issues being heard and decided on merits does not operate as res judicata. Furthermore, if the Resolution Professional files an application seeking similar prayers to one filed by the appellants, the Adjudicating Authority has a duty to hear and dispose of both applications together on merits, rather than dismissing the appellants' application outright.
Final Ruling
The applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal were allowed. The impugned order dated 30.03.2026 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to be decided on merits after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard. IA No. 1313/2026 was revived on the board of the Adjudicating Authority, with a direction for the parties to appear on 08.09.2026.
Plain-Language Gist
Six homebuyers appealed after the lower tribunal dismissed their application regarding property possession and registration without considering the actual arguments. The appellate tribunal held that the lower tribunal was wrong to dismiss the case merely because a previous application was withdrawn or because the Resolution Professional had filed a similar request. The case was sent back to the lower tribunal with instructions to hear and decide the homebuyers' application properly on its merits.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode) [Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Oral)]
17.08.2026 : IA No. 5514 of 2026- The instant application has been moved by the Appellant to condone the delay of 6 days which has occurred in filing the appeal. We have perused the explanation given in paragraph no. 2 to 7 of the application and are of the considered view that the delay of 6 days has been sufficiently explained. Thus the application is allowed and the delay of 6 days occurred in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. IA No. 5463 of 2026- The instant application has been filed by the appellant to condone the delay of 14 days which has occurred in refiling the appeal. Having perused the ground taken in paragraph no. 2 to 6 of the application, we are satisfied that the delay has been adequately explained and thus the application is allowed and the delay of 14 days which has occurred in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1422 of 2026
Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
Having regard to the order intended to be passed the issuance of notice to the Respondent is dispensed with as the order which is intended to be passed may not be effecting the rights of the Respondent.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants i.e. 6 homebuyers who have challenged the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench, (Adjudicating Authority) with regard to IA No. 1313/2026 moved by the appellant in CP IB No. 390/2023 and by passing the impugned order the said application has been rejected.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the IA No. 1313/2026 was filed by the appellant with regard to multiple prayers contained therein, however the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dismissed/disposed of the said application only on the ground that earlier the appellants had moved an application being IA No. 6154/2025 which was withdrawn and consequently dismissed as withdrawn on 18.12.2025 and also that with regard to the similar reliefs an application has been moved by the RP i.e. IA No. 4463/2024.
It is vehemently submitted that since an application was moved by the appellant raising genuine grievances it was the duty of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to have disposed of the same on merits and simply on the basis that earlier an application was moved by the appellant which was withdrawn and was not decided on merits and in view that some application has been moved by the RP the said application could not be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record, it appears that by passing the impugned order the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has dismissed/disposed of the IA filed by the appellants with regard to the following prayers:
“A) Declare that possession handed over to the applicant homebuyers constitutes full legal possession under Regulation 4E of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, free from encumbrances, and not a "fit-out" possession; B) Confirm the legal provision that the Applicant Homebuyers' units are excluded from liquidation proceedings; and restrain the RP from taking any step that would include the Applicant Homebuyers' units in any liquidation estate or from treating such units as part of the liquidation estate.
C) Order the RP to furnish complete disclosure of steps taken for registration of flats, including communications with New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and actions under IBC; D) Order the RP to report compliance to the CoC and Hon'ble NCLT, placing on record that the applicant homebuyers' rights under Regulation 4E of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 are being upheld.
E) Direct the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), an Operational Creditor, to issue Occupation Certificates (OC) in respect of towers/units belonging to the Project, i.e., ATS Le Grandiose, which stand completed and ready for possession; F) Direct the Resolution Professional to take all necessary steps to secure the Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate from NOIDA (including initiating proceedings, if necessary), to file a compliance affidavit before this Tribunal and to place on record steps taken within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order and thereafter file fortnightly compliance affidavits until OC/CC and registry are completed.
G) Direct the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to resume registry of units belonging to the Project, i.e., ATS Le Grandiose, sold to the homebuyers; H) Pass appropriate directions to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to attend the meetings of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in accordance with Regulation 18(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and furnish comprehensive account of the steps undertaken by it to a towards fulfilment of its obligations pertaining to the project; I) Direct the RP to actively pursue the OC/CC process and file periodic reports with this Hon. Tribunal as well as with CoC to prevent further delay and safeguard the rights of homebuyers; J) Direct the NOIDA Authority to file a detailed affidavit explaining the reasons for non-issuance of OC/CC till date, and start execution of registries of completed units irrespective of the developer's outstanding dues, in line with the Milanka Chaudhary judgment, so that home buyers are not penalised for defaults of the corporate debtor.
K) Pass any order(s) or relief(s), direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice”.
We also notice that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has not discussed the merit of the application and only on the score that one application was earlier filed by the appellant being IA No. 6154 of 2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn and also on the score that the RP has moved application with similar prayers, the application has been dismissed.
We are of the considered view that at first the IA alleged to have been filed by the appellant being IA No.6154 of 2025 was not disposed of on merits and was withdrawn therefore the same may not operate as Res Judicata because no issue was heard and decided by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.
Secondly, even if an application for grant of similar prayers had been moved by the RP of the CD even then the duty of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority was to dispose of both these applications together i.e. the application filed by the RP and the application which was moved by the appellant.
Having regard to the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order may not withstand to the test of law and therefore is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the same after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
IA No. 1313/2026 is revived on the board of the Adjudicating Authority for this purpose. The parties shall appear before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 08.09.2026.
The appeal is finally disposed of in above terms.
| [Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial) | |
| [Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) | |
| sr/mr |