BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020

Complaint No. CC006000000197786


DURGA AMITAVA GHOSH AMITAVA GHOSH ...COMPLAINANTS
VS
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ...RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P99000012539

I N T E R I M O R D E R
(04.03.2025)
(Date of Hearing: 16.12.2024)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA

Adv. Nilofer Shaikh for Complainants
Adv. Ramdayal 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 20.08.2019 passed by NCLT in CP (IB) -27/I&BP/MB/2019
filed by BANK OF INDIA, 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 20.08.2019 in CP (IB) No. -
27/I&BP/MB/2019 filed by BANK OF INDIA, 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.

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 20.08.2019 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. Further it is submitted by the Respondent that the other adjoining
matters which were proceeded before the Hon’ble Chair person has also
been kept in abeyance in view of the order dated 20.08.2019 of NCLT.

E. 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. The Complainant stated that as per the Maharashtra Real estate Appellate
Tribunal Regulation 2019 chapter X deals with the death and insolvency of
the parties

15. i. Where in a proceeding, any of the parties to the proceedings ,the
proceeding shall continued and adjudicated with successor –in –interest in
case of individual or partnership firm as in the case of an insolvent, the
official receiver or assignee ,as in the case of a company under liquidation
/winding up , the proceedings shall continue with, the executor,
administrator ,liquidator or other legal representative of the party
concerned as the case may be.

This section gives power to the allottee to continue the proceedings under
liquidation with their executor or administrator etc.

c. Furthermore , the Complainant submitted that the in “Pioneer Urban Land
and Infrastructure Ltd and Anr v. Union of India, in this case, many writ
petitions were filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the 2018
amendment in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by the Insolvency Law
Committee.

d. The amendment so made deems allottees of real estate projects to be
“Financial Creditors” in Section 5(8)(f) of IBC. So that they may trigger the
code under section 7, against real estate developers. Being financial
creditors, they are even entitled to represent in the Committee of Creditors.

e. A homebuyer should not be classified as an ‘other creditor’ merely because
they have decided to exercise their legal rights and remedies available
under law and obtained a decree of refund in their favour from RERA.

f. The Complainant further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vishal Chelani (Supra) has recognized and upheld the status of the
homebuyers who are the decree-holders as ‘financial creditors’ under the
Code.

g. The ruling in the Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited (Supra)
recognizes the rights of the homebuyers as ‘financial creditors’ and also its
rights to pursue other remedies such as under RERA and the consumer
protection laws in order to redress their grievances.

4. This Authority has perused the application of the Respondent and reply of the
Complainant on the said application and in the opinion of this Authority;

5. It is pertinent to note that the fact that as on date of this order, an order dated

20. 08.2019 passed by NCLT initiating the CIRP process against the Respondent
is in effect, and vide the said order dated 20.08.2019, 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.

6. In light of the above MahaRERA has perused the applicability of the
regulations referred by the Complainant and it is observed that the same are
not applicable to this Authority hence, on the basis of the said regulations
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 the final disposal of the said insolvency proceeding pending against the
Respondent if need be.

ORDER

A. The Respondent's miscellaneous application is allowed.
B. The matter stands sinedie adjourned.


Ravindra Deshpande,
Member II, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKAR
AO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.03.04
15:45:57 +05'30'