Around
200 Real Estate Developers approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional
validity of the amendment made in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
which deems allottees of real estate projects to be “financial
creditors” under Section 7. In
addition, being financial creditors, they are entitled to be represented in the
Committee of Creditors by authorized representatives.
In the
last week the Supreme Court upheld the said amendment in Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and rejected the plea of the
real estate developers. Speaking of the benefits of IBC to homebuyers a bench
of Justices R F Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant said that IBC is a
beneficial legislation to protect the interest of home-buyers who had invested
their money to realize their dream of a house and there was no illegality in
giving them a say in insolvency proceedings against a builder which failed to discharge its
obligation to handover possession of flats on time.
Further,
highlighting the importance of RERA the court held that “RERA is
to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the Amendment Act. It is
only in the event of conflict that the Code will prevail over RERA. Remedies that
are given to allottees of flats/apartments are therefore concurrent remedies,
such allottees of flats/apartments being in a position to avail of remedies
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the
Code,”
It was
also pointed out that the threshold limit to trigger the Code is purposely kept
low – at only Rs 1 lakh – making
it clear that small individuals may also trigger the Code as financial
creditors, along with banks and financial institutions to whom crores of money
may be due.
“The Code
is thus a beneficial legislation which can be triggered to put the corporate
debtor back on its feet in the interest of unsecured creditors like allottees,
who are vitally interested in the financial health of the corporate debtor, so
that a replaced management may then carry out the real estate project as
originally envisaged and deliver the flat/apartment as soon as possible and/or
pay compensation in the event of late delivery, or non-delivery, or refund
amounts advanced together with interest,” it further
said.
It was
contended by the real estate developers that the law can be used as a tool of
blackmail by speculative investors, to which the court said that the builders
can also point out in the proceedings that the insolvency resolution process
under the Code has been invoked fraudulently and with malicious intent.
The
bench also stated that with the help of IBC the aggrieved home-buyers can take
action against builders and if that status is taken away, they will not get
anything in liquidation process against a defaulting company.
Comments
Post a Comment