Crucially, the Tribunal also set aside an earlier order that had wrongly directed the buyers to approach the NCLT. It held that MahaRERA must enforce its own orders and has remanded the matter back to the Authority to facilitate refunds in line with the approved insolvency Resolution Plan.

Background: Stalled Project & Initial Relief

• Project: “Ten BKC” redevelopment in Bandra, Mumbai
• Promoter: Radius Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
• Co-Promoter: MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Pvt. Ltd.
• Buyers: Numerous, including several UK-based NRIs

Under a subvention scheme, flats were promised by November 30, 2019, but the project stalled. On April 30, 2021, MahaRERA allowed buyers to withdraw and ordered a refund of principal plus interest.

The same day, however, the developer was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the NCLT, which imposed a moratorium.

Conflict with the Resolution Plan

The Resolution Plan by M/s. Adani Realty, approved on January 9, 2023, offered refunds only of the principal amount and required buyers to produce NOCs from Indiabulls Housing Finance.

• MahaRERA Order (2021): Refund of principal + interest
• Resolution Plan (2023): Refund of principal only, conditional on NOC

When buyers couldn’t secure the NOCs, a MahaRERA Adjudicating Officer told them to approach the NCLT — a direction now struck down by the Tribunal.

Tribunal’s Key Findings

The Tribunal provided clarity on both substance and procedure:

Implications for Homebuyers

Positive Takeaways

• MahaRERA remains the forum: Buyers cannot be pushed to NCLT for execution.
• Principal refund is protected: Recovery of original investment is secured.

Cautionary Lessons

• IBC trumps RERA: A Resolution Plan can wipe out claims for interest and compensation.
• RERA orders can be diluted: A win at RERA may not hold if the developer enters insolvency.
• Resolution Plan is supreme: Once approved, it binds even dissenting buyers.
• Beware of subvention + NOC clauses: Such conditions can complicate recovery.

Conclusion

For the Ten BKC buyers, the Tribunal’s order is both a procedural win and a financial reality check. They no longer need to chase the NCLT — MahaRERA itself must handle the refunds. But the scope of recovery is limited: only the principal, no interest.

This judgment sends a strong message to all homebuyers: while RERA offers protection, its reach is curtailed once a developer enters bankruptcy. Insolvency law prevails, and homebuyers must align their expectations accordingly.

Also Read: MahaRERA Directs Developer to Allocate Car Parking to Homebuyers, Warns of Penalty for Non-Compliance

The post Homebuyers Win Back Route to MahaRERA, But Tribunal Limits Refund to Principal Only appeared first on Square Feat India.

Complaint Adjourned Sine Die

The complaint, filed by Durga Amitava Ghosh and Amitava Ghosh (Complaint No. CC006000000197786), sought relief against HDIL. However, during the hearing on December 16, 2024, the developer requested that the matter be kept in abeyance, citing the ongoing CIRP initiated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on August 20, 2019. As per Section 14 of the IBC, a moratorium is in place, preventing the initiation or continuation of legal proceedings against the corporate debtor.

Homebuyers’ Plea Falls Short

The complainants argued that despite the CIRP, MahaRERA could still grant relief to allottees, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. case. They emphasized that homebuyers are treated as financial creditors under the IBC, granting them the right to continue pursuing their claims.

However, the MahaRERA authority, presided over by Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, upheld the moratorium and adjourned the complaint sine die (without a specified date for resumption) in the order issued on March 4, 2025. The complainants were advised to approach MahaRERA after the insolvency process concludes if they still seek redressal.

A Ray of Hope for Homebuyers

While the complaint remains on hold, the authority has instructed the respondent to facilitate the complainants in filing their claims within the CIRP framework. This development leaves homebuyers in a state of uncertainty as they await the outcome of HDIL’s insolvency resolution.

The Long Road Ahead

HDIL, once a prominent real estate developer, has been embroiled in financial troubles since 2019. The insolvency proceedings have put several projects and investments on hold, leaving numerous homebuyers and creditors uncertain about the fate of their investments.

As the resolution process continues, affected homebuyers are left hoping for a favorable outcome that can revive stalled projects and ensure justice for those who invested their hard-earned money.

The post HDIL Insolvency Proceedings Stall MahaRERA Complaint – Homebuyers Left in Limbo appeared first on Square Feat India.

The dispute centers around a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and the corporate debtor, previously known as Era Infrastructure Limited. The CIRP was initiated on December 5, 2018, after the corporate debtor failed to supply power since March 2015. Following this, Gujarat Urja issued a default notice and subsequently terminated the PPA, seeking compensation of Rs. 3.36 crores.

Despite this, the RP stated that the termination of the PPA during the ongoing CIRP was impermissible due to the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The RP emphasized that claims related to termination could not be verified as valid during the CIRP, leading to the rejection of Gujarat Urja’s claim filed in July 2021.

The NCLAT upheld the RP’s position, stating that the appellant had delayed filing claims by 849 days, which should have been submitted before March 5, 2019, in accordance with CIRP regulations. The tribunal also noted that the public announcement of the CIRP proceedings was sufficient notification for all creditors, including Gujarat Urja, which is a wholly owned public sector unit of the Gujarat government.

The ruling reiterated that claims can only be entertained if they are filed in relation to the CIRP commencement date, emphasizing that subsequent claims do not automatically discharge and must follow different legal proceedings if recovery is sought.

In conclusion, the NCLAT found no merit in the appeal, confirming the Adjudicating Authority’s earlier decision that the RP acted correctly in rejecting claims that arose after the initiation of the CIRP. The tribunal dismissed the appeal without costs, closing any pending interim applications.

Also Read: <strong><u>Anirudh Agro gets NCLAT Nod to Acquire Viceroy Hotels, To Infuse Over Rs 150 Crore</u></strong>

The post NCLAT Ruling: Claims Arising Post-CIRP Cannot Be Entertained by Resolution Professionals appeared first on Square Feat India.