The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday stayed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order initiating insolvency proceedings against Noida-based developer Jaypee Infratech. The decision came as a relief to over 30,000 homebuyers, whose position became tenuous after the August 9 NCLT order; despite having paid over 90 per cent of the price with delivery of flats long overdue, their status was unclear under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The order came in a writ petition filed by Chitra Sharma, a homebuyer, who had purchased a flat from the debt-ridden company. The court has issued a notice to all parties, including the Centre, the company, the Noida Authority and the Uttar Pradesh government, and set the next hearing for October 10. Experts said the pending cases before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which were under a moratorium, might come alive. Consumers demand that relief under these, which cannot be reversed, should be expedited. The decision could impact homebuyers in other insolvency-bound firms.
Speaking to Business Standard earlier, Ashwarya Sinha, who is representing Sharma, had said that the petitioner was questioning the constitutional validity of the insolvency code, since it did not recognise the rights of homebuyers and sought harmonious construction with other recent laws such as Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), which protected the rights of homebuyers. Other demands include forensic audit of the company and takeover of distressed projects by state-owned developers.
Sources close to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India said the regulator was of the view that the law would emerge stronger after being tested by the courts.
Param Pandya, research fellow, corporate and financial law vertical at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said, “The SC’s stay on the NCLT order is not just a huge relief for homebuyers across the country, but an interesting case for the legal pundits to analyse. The lack of clarity in judicial precedents and the release of Form F had confounded the confusion, in relation to the status of homebuyers under the IBC. The SC should clear the clouds on this legal issue. While the SC’s interference in this case is more than justified, from a futuristic perspective and in the light of the decision in the Innoventive Industries case, it will be vital to see on what principles the SC decides to interfere in the insolvency resolution process.”