AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Bhushan, J.
These two applications have been filed by M/s. Supertech Ecociti Apartment Owners Association and M/s. 34 Pavilion Apartment Owners Association in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 406/2022 praying for certain directions. Notices were issued in the applications and reply has been filed, both by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) as well as the YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No. 2 in the application.
We have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the IRP and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. We proceed to notice the respective prayers and submissions made therein in following manner;
I.A. No. 5459/2025
This application has been filed by Supertech Ecociti Apartment Owners Association praying for following reliefs:
“i.Direct handing over maintenance and IFMS charges to the Applicant, namely Supertech Ecociti Apartment Owners Association, forthwith, upon preparation of an inventory, and inspection of all deficiencies thereof;
ii.Direct the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) & the Y G Estates Failities Management Pvt. Ltd. to complete accounts, clear statutory dues and liabilities till the period of handing over, and make available book of accounts, financial records and expenditure statements for the entire period of its operations; and/or
iii.Pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
The appellant’s case in the application is that applicant is a registered Association of homebuyers represented through its President of the Association of homebuyers residing in residential buildings called Supertech Ecociti Apartment located at Sector 137, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. It is pleaded that Appellant Association is registered association within meaning of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010. Registration certificate was issued on 03.01.2022. Board resolution dated 10.08.2025 was passed, which is relied for filing the application. It is pleaded that there are 2,147 flats and about 99% of the owners have taken possession and living in the society, since 2015. Applicant requested the Noida Authority for facilitating handing over the maintenance and IFMS funds in favour of the applicant and also made representation to the management of YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. which was handed over the maintenance by the corporate debtor. Noida Authority wrote a letter on 18.10.2023 to M/s. Supertech Ltd. for taking steps for handover the management within 15 days. A recommendation was also made to the IRP on 01.07.2025 for facilitating handing over the maintenance. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on provisions of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal on an application I.A. No. 4306/2023 filed by Cape Town Association of Apartment Owners, where this Tribunal has directed the YG Estates to handover the maintenance to registered association of Cape Town. Further, reliance has been placed on order passed in I.A. No. 8083/2024 in the case of Supernova Apartment Owners Association where order dated 18.03.2025 was passed.
Learned counsel for the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has submitted that Court may consider the prayers and in event direction is passed to handover the maintenance, appropriate steps shall be taken by the IRP.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. has opposed the application and submitted that it has been providing maintenance services to the project for the last 6 years, however, in reply which was filed by the YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd., in paragraph 22, following has been stated:
“22.Without prejudice to the foregoing, YG states that it has no objection to transferring the maintenance responsibilities to a duly constituted Association, provided that all outstanding dues for services already rendered are fully discharged.”
Learned counsel Mr. Milan Singh Negi appearing for respondent No. 2 has raised objection regarding maintainability of the application relying on Rule 55 of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Rules, 2010 (for short the 2010 Rules). It is submitted that it is not in compliance of Rule 55, application does not carry any seal of the Association and there is no attestation on behalf of the Association by two members of the Board and the Secretary or any other person. Application thus is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that for transferring the maintenance not the occupancy certificate is required but completion certificate is required under 2010 Rules. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that constitution of the Applicant Association is in contravention of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, the project is incomplete and no completion certificate has been issued. It is submitted that the challenge was made to the registration of Applicant’s Association before the High Court of Allahabad, where liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to approach the appellate authority and appeals have been filed by certain allottees, questioning the validity of Apartment Owners Association, there is outstanding amount owed to YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. from the homebuyers of the Projects.
We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Application filed on behalf of the Supertech Ecociti Apartment Owners Association has been verified by Mr. B. Mohanty acting as President of the Association, application is also duly supported by an affidavit of the President of Association and is supported by Board resolution dated 10.08.2025. Board resolution 10.08.2025 provides as follows:
“GENERAL BODY MEEING (GBM) RESOLUTION DATED 10TH AUGUST 2025
Under the defined provisions under Clauses mentioned in Section 4 & 14 of UP Apartment Act, 2010 mentioned invariably in Honourable NCLAT's judgement dated 18.03.25 in case pertaining to Supertech Supernova NOIDA, the following RESOLUTION is approved in the General Bod Meeting (GBM) of Apartment Owners on 10.08.25 at Eco club in Ecociti:
1.CAM Collection in AOA Account: CAM charges will be collected directly in the AOA account. Date of implementation to be decided by BOM soon.
2.Notice Period to YG: 30 days notice period to be given to YG effective from the date of notice
3.Reimbursement to YG: YG will be eligible for reimbursement only for manpower costs for the period of 30 days from the date of notice.
4.Payment of Other Costs: All other actual costs will be paid as on-behalf payments at actual, subject to prior approval from BOM.
Conditions that must be fulfilled invariably to get Reimbursement:
1.100% clearance of water dues including interest & penalty, without making pre and post IRP bifurcation as YG is a different legal entity and has collected all the water money from residents ij advance on daily basis.
2.Providing an affidavit for getting the books of income and expense accounts of Supertech Ecociti CAM and other funds received from/for Supertech Ecociti, along with the cash flow. by a CA appointed by SEAOA. All records will be made available at the premises of Supertech Ecociti for audit, which will be completed within a time-bound manner of 60 days from the date of handing over of documents.”
Submission which has been pressed by the counsel for the respondent is that application is not in accordance with Rule 55 of the 2010 Rules. Rule 55 of 2010 Rules, provides as follows:
“"55. Seal of the Association – The Association shall have a common seal which shall be in the custody of the Secretary and shall be used under the authority of a resolution of the Board and every Deed of Instrument to which seal is affixed shall be attested for and on behalf of the Association by two members of the Board and the Secretary or any other person authorised-by the Association.”
Rule 55 deals with seal of the association it provides that the Association shall have a common seal which shall be in the custody of the Secretary and shall be used under the authority of resolution of the Board and every Deed of Instrument to which seal is affixed shall be attested for and on behalf of the Association by two members of the Board and the Secretary or any other person. Present is not a case that Association is executing a Deed or Instrument. Association is filing an application in company appeal pending in this Tribunal, which application is duly supported by an affidavit sworn by its President. We, thus do not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that application is not maintainable on the strength of Rule 55 of the 2010 Rules.
The submission which has been pressed by the counsel for the appellant is that there being registered Association by virtue of provisions of Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, it is submitted that after formation of the Association of the apartment owners, management of the affairs of the apartment regarding their common areas and facilities shall be deemed to be transferred from the promotor to the Association which shall thereupon maintained by them.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on an order passed by this Tribunal dated 18.03.2025 in I.A. No.8083/2024 filed by the Supernova Apartment Owners Association. In the above order, YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. was also the entity which was providing maintenance to the various projects and in I.A. No. 8083/2024 & I.A. No. 799/2025, this Tribunal considered all objections of YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. has allowed the application and directed for handing over the maintenance to the association. In paragraphs 24 & 25 of the order dated 18.03.2025, following was directed:
“24.We are of the view that the association having been registered and the registration of association still being valid it is not open for the YG Estates to contend that registration of association is not in accordance with the law. The issue with regard to non-fulfilment of the necessary conditions for registration of association cannot be allowed to be raised in this proceeding nor can it be examined in these applications. When the association has been registered, it has to be presumed that registration was made after compliance of all necessary requirement. We, thus are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Dutta that registration of association is not in accordance with law.
25.We have also noticed the provisions of Section 4 of the 2010 Act. Section 14(5) provides that on formation of the association of the apartment owners under section sub-Section (2) above, the management of the affairs of the apartments regarding their common areas and facilities shall be deemed to be transferred from the promoters to the association which shall thereupon maintained them. Thus, the law clearly envisaged, handing over possession, handing over common area and facilities to the association after registration of association. When the statute obliged the promoter to handover the facilities to the association and there is deeming fiction, we are of the view that YG Estates which is nothing but a related party to the corporate debtor and agency nominated by the corporate debtor to carry out the maintenance cannot refuse handover such maintenance to the association.”
The applicant has pleaded that 99% flats owners are residing in the building and Association has been registered on 03.01.2022. Applicant has written to the Noida Authority which has also directed the corporate debtor M/s. Supertech Ltd. to take steps to handover the maintenance to the registered Association. It is relevant to notice that Noida Authority by earlier letter dated 01.06.2022 has directed to handover the maintenance to the registered Association. The Association of the apartment owners which has already been registered namely Supertech Ecociti Apartment Owners Association on 03.01.2022 which registration is valid till 02.01.2027.
Coming to the submission of the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that certain allottees has challenged the registration of appellant which challenge is pending before the Commissioner Meerut Division. It is not disputed that registration of the Applicant Association is still current, challenged to the registration or any challenge raised by the certain other allottees cannot in any manner take away the status of registered association under the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 of the applicant. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in [Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33826/2012] in the matter of ‘M/s. Desinarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’ Vs. ‘Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors.’, where Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010. Allahabad High Court recording its conclusion in paragraph 65(9) has held as follows:
“65.To sum up the conclusions drawn by us are as follows:-
(9)The association of apartment owners is to be registered by the Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Societies Registration Act as amended in the State of U.P. If bye-laws are inconformity with the model byelaws as notified on 16.11.2011, the Registrar/ Deputy Registrar/ Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register association on the ground that it contains less than minimum number of members of the society under the Societies Registration Act or that it does not comply with any of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act as amended in the State of U.P. The registration of the association is in compliance with the provisions of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 and model byelaws. It shall be the joint responsibility of the promoter and apartment owners to obtain the registration. The Registrar/ Deputy Registrar/ Sub Registrar shall not refuse to register the association, if the promoter does not join even after one month’s notice given by the apartment owners or 33% of the apartment owners, whichever is more. It is clarified that the completion of all infrastructure services and completion of all infrastructure services and completion certificate from local authority will not be a ground to deny the registration, as the issuance of completion certificate depends on the steps to be taken by the promoter. The delay caused by him in obtaining such certificate will defeat the object of formation of the society and the enforcement of the rights and liabilities of the promoter and the apartment owners. In such case the society will be registered provisionally under the certificate to be given by the competent authority as defined in Rule 2 (c) of the Act, who will give a time period to the promoter to provide all infrastructure services and to obtain completion certificate, failing which the promoter will invite punishment for the offence as prescribed under Section 25 of the Act including the punishment of imprisonment under Section 25(1) of the Act.”
We may observe that once registration has been granted under the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, it is not open for respondent No. 2 to contend that pre-condition for registration were wanting. As noted above, 99% flat owners are residing in the building and association has been registered which registration is current.
We are of the view that appellant has made out a case for issuing direction to the respondent No. 2 to handover the maintenance to the applicant. Respondent No. 2 shall take steps and complete the handover of the maintenance to the applicant registered Association within 30 days from today. The maintenance shall be handed over under the supervision of the IRP.
Insofar as submission of respondent No. 2 that there are certain dues of respondent No. 2 on the allottees, it is open for the respondent No. 2 to take such steps as permissible under the contract between the respondent No. 2 and the allottees.
I.A. No. 5459/2025 stands allowed in the above manner.
I.A. No. 6235/2025
This application has been filed by M/s 34 Pavilion Apartment Owners Association impleading the IRP as respondent No. 1 and YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. as respondent No. 2.
In the application, applicant has also prayed for handing over the maintenance. In the application, following prayers have been made:
“i.Direct handing over maintenance and IFMS charges to the Applicant, namely 34 Pavilion Apartment Owners Association, forthwith, upon preparation of an inventory, and inspection of all deficiencies thereof along with handing over of original approved map(s) and layout plans;
ii.Direct the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) & the Y G Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. to complete accounts, clear statutory dues and liabilities till the period of handing over, and make available book of accounts, financial records and expenditure statements for the entire period of its operations; and/or
iii.Pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
The reply to the application has been filed both by IRP as well as the YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted by the applicant that Projects have been completed in the year 2012-13 and it is 100% occupied. It is submitted that Association has been registered namely 34 Pavilion Apartment Owners Association, which registration certificate has been renewed on 01.03.2025. Noida Authority has also written to the M/s. Supertech Ltd. vide letter dated 06.08.2025, where request of the applicant was noticed to handover the maintenance of common areas and amenities.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has objected to the application stating that there is no Board resolution. It is submitted that there are 4 towers and only 2 towers have partial occupancy certificate, common area facilities are common. The application has been filed by one Naresh Chand Pandey claiming as authorised signatory and President of the Association. Application is duly supported by the affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicant during submissions submitted that the Board resolution was passed on 07.09.2025 before filing of the application but the said could not be brought on record. It is submitted that President of the Association is fully authorised to take steps.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Rule 55 of 2010 Rules. We have already dealt the above objection of the respondent No. 2 relying on Rule 55 of 2010 Rules while considering I.A. No.5459/2025 and the said objecting having been overruled, we do not find any substance in the said objection of the respondent No. 2.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the order of this Tribunal passed on the application of Supernova Apartment Owners Association, where this Tribunal has already allowed the application and direction has been issued to respondent No. 2 to handover the maintenance to the registered Association.
We have already noticed the relevant provisions of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 which was referred to and relied by this Tribunal in its earlier order dated 18.03.2025 passed on the application, relevant paragraph of which has been quoted while considering I.A. No. 5459/2025.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that there are certain objections and litigation with regard to registration. It is pleaded by respondent No. 2 that one allottee of the Project had filed application under Section 173(4) of the CrPC against the certain members. Order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 06.01.2026 has been referred to and relied and reference has also been made to FIR filed by one allottee. In the present application, we are only concerned with the claim of the applicant for handing over the maintenance by respondent No. 2. Insofar as other objections including the FIR lodged by one allottee that is not subject matter of consideration and all other litigations including the complaint have to be dealt in accordance with law, for which no observations is needed in the present proceeding. IRP in its reply has pleaded that in Project M/s 34 Pavilion Apartment Owners Association, occupancy certificate has been issued by Noida only in respect of 2 of 4 towers.
The IRP has submitted that Applicant Association has been representing to the IRP for transfer of the maintenance agencies and submitted complaints to the IRP as well as the Noida. It has also referred to certain complaint with regard to registration. IRP, however, in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in its reply has observed that it is just and proper that YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. be directed to be removed as the maintenance agencies. It is however submitted that occupancy certificate in respect of 2 out of 4 residential towers with regard to Project was issued on 28.09.2012. It is further pleaded by the IRP that out of total 262 flats across all 4 towers not less than 99% of the allottees have taken possession which pleadings have made in paragraph 7.1.
From the facts brought on record it does appear that 99% allottees have taken possession and registered Association has been formed. Occupancy certificate of 2 towers was obtained as early as in the year 2012 and for occupancy certificate for rest of 2 towers it was obligation of the management of the corporate debtor. Insofar as pending occupancy certificate, it shall be open for the IRP to take steps. Fact remains that 99% of the homebuyers have taken possession and registered Association has been formed, we are of the view that by virtue of statutory provisions of Section 14(5) as noted above the maintenance is required to be handed over to the applicant.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that prayers made in the application deserves to be allowed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to handover the maintenance within 30 days from today under the supervision of the IRP.
Insofar as submission of respondent No. 2 that there are certain dues of respondent No. 2 on the allottees, it is open for the respondent No. 2 to take such steps as permissible under the contract between the respondent No. 2 and the allottees.
I.A. No. 6235/2025 is allowed accordingly.