Comp. CC006000000195790
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020


Complaint No. CC006000000195790


Ram Sahani
...Complainant

Vs

Nirmal Lifestyle Kalyan Pvt. Ltd.

...Respondent


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700003543


I N T E R I M O R D E R
(23.01.2025)
(Date of Hearing: 22.10.2024)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member II, MahaRERA

Adv. Jayashri Gilra for Complainants
None for Respondent

1. ​ The Respondent has filed the present application praying this Authority to
keep the captioned complaint in abeyance until further orders of the Learned
National Company Law Tribunal (Hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”) in view
of the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by NCLT in CP (IB) No. 1337/MB/2020
filed by SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED, i.e., the Financial Creditor
therein against the Respondent herein, admitting the Respondent herein into
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) in
accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as “IBC Code”).

2. ​ The brief facts of the application filed by the Respondent are as follows:-
a.​ that NCLT has passed an order dated 02.02.2023 in CP (IB) No.
1337/MB/2020 filed by SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED, i.e., the
Financial Creditor therein against the Respondent herein, thereby admitting
the Respondent herein into CIRP in accordance with the provisions of the
IBC Code.
Page-1 of 5

Comp. CC006000000195790
b.​ In view thereof, Section 14 of the Code, mandates a moratorium on the
institution and continuation of legal proceedings against a Corporate
Debtor in respect of which an order of admission into CIRP has been
passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which applies to the Respondent
herein.
c.​ Accordingly, the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by NCLT prohibits the
institution and continuation of all legal proceedings against the Respondent
herein, including, by effect, the captioned Complaint before this Hon’ble
Authority.
d.​ In view of the above, the Respondent prayed that the captioned complaint
be kept in abeyance until further orders of the Learned NCLT.

3. ​ The Complainant has filed reply to the said application of the Respondent. The
brief facts of the reply of the Complainant are as follows: -
a.​ With respect to the Application filed by Respondent stating that the
Respondent Company is into the proceedings under NCLT. The
Complainant herein is contesting this Application contending that such
proceeding of NCLT does not restrict this Authority to grant relief to the
Allottee.
b.​ A

JUDGMENT

of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 09.03.2020 passed in
the Writ Petition No. 32221 of 2020 Marvel Sigma V/s. Rustom Mehta was
relied upon by the Complainant and requested to dismiss the application
filed by the Resolution Professional and to pass the necessary orders as per
the prayers of the Complainant.

4. ​ The said application was heard by this Authority on 22.10.2024, when, the
advocate for the Complainant appeared and the Respondent remained absent
even though the notice of hearing and the link of hearing was duly served
upon the Respondent.

5. ​ After perusing the application filed by the Respondent and the reply filed by
the Complainant, a search was undertaken on the website of the Insolvency
Page-2 of 5

Comp. CC006000000195790
and Bankruptcy Board of India, at that time, MahaRERA noticed that vide an
order dated 16.06.2022, NCLT had passed an order in the above mentioned
Company Petition against the Respondent herein, thereby admitting the
Respondent into CIRP in accordance with the provisions of the IBC Code.

6. ​ Being aggrieved by this order, a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 697 of
2022 was filed by a Suspended Director of the Respondent. Vide an order
dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “NCLAT”) in Company Appeal
No. (AT) (Insolvency) No. 697 of 2022, the aforesaid order dated 16-06-2022
passed by the NCLT initiating CIRP process has been upheld.

7. ​ The present application was filed by the Respondent before this Authority on

29. 01.2024.

8. ​ This Authority has also perused the

JUDGEMENT

relied upon by the
Complainant namely Marvel Sigma v/s Rustom Mehta passed by the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Interim Application (ST) No. 2044 of 2021 filed in Writ
Petition (L) No. 3221 of 2020. The said Application was filed by the Corporate
Debtor, the Respondent Applicant therein challenging the maintainability of
the Writ Petition inter alia on the ground that the Petitioner in the Writ Petition
had also filed a claim before the NCLT. Whilst deciding the said application,
the Hon’ble High Court has held that the filing of an Application by the
Petitioner – Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the IBC, which is pending
adjudication, does not in any way affect the maintainability of Writ Petition
filed before it and dismissed the application filed by the Corporate Debtor, the
Respondent Applicant therein. Whilst concluding the issue of maintainability
of Writ Petition in light of Petitioner’s therein filing Section 7 Company
Petition under the IBC Code, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that
filing of a Section 7 Petition under the IBC Code by the Petitioner does not
affect its rights to seek monetary reliefs under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “said Act”) and under the
Page-3 of 5

Comp. CC006000000195790
Writ Petition which was filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in view
of the alleged failure of the authorities to take effective steps for recovery of
the amount directed to be paid to the Petitioner, and answered the said issue in
negative. The facts in the said case before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and
the present case differs since in the case before the Hon’ble Bombay High
Court, Section 7 Company Petition was filed before the NCLT by the Petitioner
in the Writ Petition and was pending adjudication. However, Section 7
Company Petition filed in the case before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was
pending adjudication and in the present case, Section 7 Company Petition filed
against the Respondent herein is already adjudicated and decided by allowing
initiation of CIRP process against the Respondent, hence, the Order dated

16. 06.2022 passed by NCLT against the Respondent herein is applicable in the
present case.

9. ​ On bare perusal of the application filed by the Respondent, it is observed that
the Respondent has brought before this Authority incorrect facts about passing
of the NCLT order initiating CIRP process against the Respondent herein
which is evident from the fact that the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by NCLT
and referred by the Respondent in the application seeking abeyance of the
present complaint is in fact an order passed in pursuance of the section 22 of
the IBC Code, whereby, the Interim Resolution Professional namely Mr.
Dilipkumar Natwarlal Jagad was replaced by the Resolution Professional
namely Mr. Shailendra Ajmera. On the other hand, the order passed by NCLT
by virtue of which CIRP process was initiated against the Respondent was
vide order dated 16.06.2022, which order was upheld by the NCLAT vide its
order dated 04.01.2023.

10. ​In view of the apparent error in the application filed by the Respondent with
regards to order of NCLT initiating CIRP process against the Respondent,
deserves to be dismissed.

11. ​Nevertheless, this Authority cannot negate the fact that as on date of this
Page-4 of 5

Comp. CC006000000195790
order, an order dated 16.06.2022 passed by NCLT initiating CIRP process
against the Respondent is in effect and vide the said order dated 16.06.2022,
NCLT has prohibited the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits
or proceedings against the corporate debtor i.e. the Respondent herein
including execution of any

JUDGMENT

, decree or order in any court of law,
tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; transferring, encumbering
alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal
right or beneficial interest therein; any action to foreclose, recover or enforce
any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property
including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; the recovery of any
property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the
possession of the Corporate Debtor.

12. ​In light of the above, MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide this complaint
against the Respondent at this stage and hence the present complaint is
adjourned sine die. However, the Respondent may facilitate the Complainant
to file his claim before the CIRP, if any. However, liberty is granted to the
Complainant to approach MahaRERA after final disposal of the said
insolvency proceeding pending against the Respondent if need be.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member II, MahaRERA
Date : 23.01.2025

Page-5 of 5
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.01.23 15:11:51
+05'30'