On Friday, the Supreme Court denied the Supertech homebuyers’ motion to restrain former directors/developers of the real estate company from disposing of their personal property and also providing details of their personal property, bank accounts and other assets.
However, the Supreme Court gave homebuyers the freedom to pursue their appeal in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
While Supertech was declared bankrupt by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the NCLAT last month suspended the formation of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as part of the insolvency proceedings as the property developer sought relief. time to negotiate with the banks.
A bench led by Judge DY Chandrachud, while refusing to intervene, has asked homebuyers to apply to NCLAT, where the case is currently pending. “Once the IBC process has started, you have to go through the rigors,” he said.
About 104 homebuyers had asked the SC to ask the SFIO to investigate the company’s affairs and submit a report on the embezzlement of funds by these former developers, in addition to an instruction to the government to form a appropriate committee to consider their grievances.
Seeking Supertech’s insolvency at the project level, the homebuyers said that as unsecured financial creditors they had a limited role to play and that the interest of secured financial creditors took priority over them.
The homebuyers had asked for their basic rights to be protected, saying the sole purpose of admitting Supertech’s liability was to escape all of its claims and liabilities to them and they were left without any remedy under the law. . “Furthermore, it is apparent from the very fact that millions of rupees collected by Supertech through homebuyers and financial institutions have been embezzled by Ram Kishore Arora and Mohit Arora who are the directors/developers of Supertech and hence are attempting to flee the Several FIRs have also been filed against these administrators for their illegal and criminal acts,” the petition states.
The homebuyers told the SC that the admission of debt and liability for the debt of the Union Bank of India reinforces the collusion of secured financial creditors and real estate companies whose only interest is to sell the assets and not to complete the projects in order to recover the amount due and owed to them.
The NCLT, despite knowing that the insolvency sought is that of a real estate developer, should have ordered the insolvency of the project so that even during the CIRP, each project would progress at its own pace towards project completion, motion filed through attorney Gaurav Goel said.