NCLAT New Delhi Affirms CIRP Of M/S Revital Reality Private Limited (Group Company Of Supertech Limited)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), has affirmed the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Revital Reality Private Limited, under section 7 of the IBC, 2016. The bench ruled that the non-obtaining of an Occupation Certificate (OC) cannot be used as a defense when default arises from incomplete construction and failure to deliver possession to homebuyers. Background of the Case The homebuyers filed an application under section 7 of the IBC to initiate CIRP of the corporate debtor, Revital Reality Pvt. Ltd. The respondents were allottees in the project “Basera” at sector 79B, Gurugram, developed by the Revital Realty Pvt. Ltd. under the Haryana Affordable Housing Policy, 2013. The Corporate Debtor obtained environmental clearance on 22.01.2016. Under the Flat Buyer's Agreement, possession was contractually promised within 48 months, i.e., by 22.01.2020. Despite having collected 90–100% of the sale consideration from the allottees, the corporate debtor failed to complete the project or deliver possession. Therefore, 172 unit holders filed a Section 7 IBC petition before the NCLT, which was admitted on 04.06.2024 and was thus challenged before the NCLAT by the suspended management of the corporate debtor. Contention of the Parties The appellant contended that the possession obligations were contingent upon the obtaining of the occupational certificate; due to its non-issuance by the relevant authorities, it failed to deliver the possession. It also highlighted that many allottees defaulted in the payment of the installments. The corporate debtor also submitted that the period of 89 days counted from 22.01.2020 falls within the prohibited period under section 10A, and the adjudicating authority has erred in admitting the section 7 application. Also, the appellant filed IA No. 6177 of 2024, requesting the tribunal to direct completion of the project by the reverse CIRP mechanism. Per contra, the respondents (homebuyers) submitted that the environmental clearance was granted on 22.01.2016, making 22.01.2020 the possession date in terms of the Flat Buyer Agreements. However, the appellant failed to deliver the possession even after the five years of the possession date. The respondent also contended that if the submission of the appellant with regard to no issuance of an occupation certificate is considered, then the default could never arise on the part of the corporate debtor. It also highlighted that only 2 out of 15 towers were completed and the project lacks basic amenities. Allottees also argued that even if the allowance of 89 days is granted to the Appellant during which construction was halted, the default is continuing, and when default is continuing in nature, the appellant cannot take the frivolous plea of application being barred under Section 10A. Observations of the NCLAT The tribunal observed that the non-delivery of possession within the four-year time limit, as prescribed by the Flat Buyer Agreements, amounted to default under IBC, and the corporate debtor cannot take advantage of its own failure to complete construction and hide behind the absence of an Occupation Certificate. Relying on the ruling of “Shailendra Agarwal vs. Asit Upadhyaya & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.327 of 2025,” the bench observed that the failure to deliver possession by the corporate debtor to the allottees is a continuing default. Also, relying on the ruling of Manish Kumar v. Union of India [(2021) 5 SCC 1], the tribunal noted that default against any allottee is sufficient for Section 7 proceedings. And the non-payment by a few allottees is merely an excuse, as the majority of allottees have substantially performed their obligations. While considering the appellants' plea regarding the reverse CIRP, the tribunal noted that in the present case it is not possible, as the section 7 applicants have opposed the continuation by the promoter extensively. Therefore, in view of the decade-long delay and continued non-completion, NCLAT held that the project requires resolution under the CIRP framework and directed the RP to proceed with issuance of Form G for early resolution of the corporate debtor, as early conclusion of the CIRP is warranted in the said case. Case Name: Mohit Arora (Suspended Director of Revital Reality Pvt. Ltd.) v. Manish Aneja & Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1163 of 2024 Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), Judgment Date: 29th August, 2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

NCLAT New Delhi Affirms CIRP Of M/S Revital Reality Private Limited (Group Company Of Supertech Limited)

Mohd.Rehan Ali

Tags