By: Arun Raghuram Mahapatra
INTRODUCTION
The world’s most populous nation, India, has seen significant expansion in the real estate market due to rising housing demand, particularly in urban regions. Homebuyers in India often find themselves caught in a precarious position due to the intricate interplay of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016[1] [“RERA”] and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016[2] [“IBC”]. Insolvency resolution of corporate debtors in the capacity of real-estate developers has posed a major challenge due to the numerous peculiarities involved in these two laws. Furthermore, for a very long time, there was a lack of clarity regarding the classification of homebuyers/allottees, leaving uncertainty as to whether they would fall within the purview of financial creditors or operational creditors under the IBC regime.[3] Although various legal developments, such as the Jaypee Infratech case[4] and 2018 IBC Amendment, have attempted to alleviate the plight of homebuyers by crystallizing their status of the allottees as financial creditors, these allottees still only remain as unsecured financial creditors[5] who receive negligible payouts under the waterfall mechanism[6] under IBC Section 53.[7] Additionally. the interests of homebuyers generally do not align with those of other conventional financial creditors, as allottees in real estate projects primarily seek the physical possession of the apartment or unit they have purchased, rather than solely focusing on the repayment of their dues, even if it involves significant financial concessions. Hence, even apart from the fact that homebuyers are unsecured financial creditors, liquidation and receiving monetary payouts as an outcome of the insolvency resolution process becomes unsuitable for such cases.
Considering all of these unique facets of the real-estate sector, a Discussion Paper on Real Estate Related Proposals-CIRP & Liquidation[8] [“Discussion Paper”] was released by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India [“IBBI”] on 6th November 2023, proposing several amendments to streamline the insolvency process for real estate projects. Following this, in February 2024, the IBBI introduced various amendments[9] to the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process For Corporate Persons), 2016[10] [“CIRP Regulations”] and the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016[11] [“Liquidation Regulations”] to further improve the condition of the homebuyers. These regulations were based on three proposals outlined in the Discussion Paper, namely: operating a separate bank account for each real estate project of the corporate debtor [“CD”]; Committee of Creditors [“CoC”] to examine and invite separate plans for each project; and exclusion of property in possession of homebuyers from the liquidation estate. All of these changes aim to enhance transparency, protect home buyers’ interests, and ensure more efficient resolution of real estate insolvencies.
However, the Discussion Paper had another interesting proposal that was not implemented via the amendments. The third proposal in the Discussion Paper [“Proposal 3”] allowed the transfer of property by the Interim Resolution Professional [“IRP”] or Resolution Professional [“RP”] in favor of those allottees who had done their part of the agreement with the approval of the CoC during the corporate insolvency resolution process [“CIRP”]. This proposal was “very important”[12] as it aimed to protect the interests and rights of the home buyers who had done their part of the agreement and prevented them from losing out on their homes which they might have spent their life savings on. Although this proposal even had prior judicial backing, the same was not implemented and was held back for re-consideration by the IBBI citing a few reasons.[13]
In this article firstly we aim to analyze Proposal 3 and why was it even proposed in the first place [Section II]. Thereafter, we seek to understand as to why Proposal 3 was not implemented and what concerns weighed in the mind of IBBI when considering the same [Section III]. Lastly, we aim to refurbish Proposal 3 and provide a new option for the IBBI to reconsider the same in light of the importance of the issue at hand [Section IV].
What exactly is Proposal 3 and why is it important?
For businesses undergoing CIRP, the IRP/RP needs to ensure continuity, which may involve the acquisition and sale of inventory. However, in the real estate sector, in some cases, creditors have fulfilled their part of the obligation in the contract and the corporate debtor has also constructed the units, but the formal handover is pending. Now the RPs in many insolvencies do not register/execute sale deeds in favor of such allottees as many of them either mistakenly consider the home units as ‘assets’ hit by the moratorium of IBC Section 14,[14] or they believe that they are not empowered under the vires of the IBC to do such a thing. Due to the same, many home buyers do not get the benefits of their home unit, even if they have performed their part of the agreement and their unit is completed, and are made to be a part of a lengthy insolvency process (which may end into a liquidation that is usually not even beneficial for them).
These issues have been considered by courts across our country, and these courts in the exercise of their inherent powers have permitted the transfer of ownership/registration of the plot, apartment, or building in a few projects during the CIRP. Most notably in the case of Alok Sharma & Ors. vs. M/s. I.P. Constructions Pvt. Ltd, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [“NCLAT”] clarified that for real-estate companies, the construction and sale of houses are core business activities and that the revenue generated from such sales is classified as “revenue from operations” and not “revenue from assets” thereby excluding such transactions from the purview of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.[15] Now, as these transactions are not subject to the moratorium, they can be implemented with the approval of the CoC, thus allowing real estate companies to continue their operations and fulfill their obligations to home buyers, even in the face of insolvency proceedings. Even the NCLAT in Alok Sharma went on to reiterate that “... the rights of home buyers cannot be affected adversely in the ‘corporate insolvency resolution process’ and their interest is to be appropriately preserved and protected within the parameters of the I & B Code, 2016…” and directed the RP in the particular case to execute the sale deed after collecting dues, costs, etc., if any, remaining unpaid.
In light of the above, the IBBI itself emphasized that “with a view of larger public good and considering plight of homebuyers there is a strong case for allowing transfer of immovable property in appropriate cases if the concerned stakeholders i.e., creditors have approved the same.”[16] In addition to this, it also observed that in a few cases, the allottees were interested in taking possession of the units on an ‘as is where is’ basis and that these allottees would prefer to get the remaining development/interiors of their home finished from balance funds that have not been paid by them.[17] Thus in order to address these issues, the following amendment was proposed by the IBBI:-
“4F. Handing over the possession. After obtaining the approval of the committee with not less than sixty-six percent of total votes, the resolution professional, shall:
(1) hand over the possession of the plot, apartment, or building or any instruments agreed to be transferred under the real estate project where the allottee has performed his part under the agreement, and facilitate registration; or
(2) provide an option to the allottees to acquire such units or on payment of balance required to complete the unit during the process. Provided that the units which are under possession of the allottees, shall not be part of the assets of the corporate debtor.
Explanation: – for the purposes of handing over the possession, the allottees are required to pay all applicable charges or do all the compliances as per the terms of the sale deed or allotment letter or any instrument for transfer and possession of the sale deed which shall not be inconsistent with the applicable laws.”[18]
The IBBI noted that these amendments “would facilitate the smooth handover of occupied units or where possession has been transferred to home buyers” and that handing over the possession of units to the allottees on ‘as is where is’ basis or on payment of balance amount would avoid delays due to unnecessary holds-up.[19] Furthermore, it was also noted that these amendments would reduce disputes on the side of the Adjudicating Authority as well[20] since many homebuyers will get their units and their claim will be settled.
However, despite the above reasons and existing judicial backing on the first half of the proposal, the same was not introduced in the February amendments. In the next section, we shall analyze and try to understand as to what concerns weighed in the mind of IBBI that made them not introduce the said proposal despite its great importance.
Why was Proposal 3 not implemented?
From the above sections, we can see that while three of the five proposals were implemented by virtue of the February Amendments, the important proposal of Execution of registration/sublease deeds to allottees with approval of CoC during CIRP was not approved. To understand the concerns that led to the IBBI not approving the said proposal, it is pertinent to look at the Comments of the Board on the Real Estate Discussion Paper [“Board Comments”].[21]
As per the Board Comments, there were certain suggestions and opposing viewpoints that weighed on the mind of the IBBI when considering Proposal 3, and the same can be primarily summed up as the following issues:-
- Whether the requirement of 66% of the total votes of CoC (for such execution/registration of sale deeds) be more detrimental than helpful? [“Issue 1”]
- Whether transfer on an “as is where is” basis is a prudent measure considering the fact that it shifts the responsibility of safe completion of the units and its services to the homebuyer? [“Issue 2”]
- Whether the handing over of a unit would in reality extinguish/settle a claim of the homebuyer? [“Issue 3”]
With respect to Issue 1, the main concern is that in the real-estate sector usually the projects are completed in a phased manner (even occupation and/or completion certificates are obtained for specific phases).[22] Due to the phase-wise nature of projects, it may be so that in one phase a lot more units are near completion whereas in another phase only a few units are near completion. In such a case if voting is undertaken for all such near-completion units in the entirety of the project (i.e., all phases), it becomes extremely difficult to reach the 66% voting threshold in the CoC as while some homebuyers may be in favor of transferring the units in the near-completed phase, others may want to see the prospective resolution plans for the other phases where only a few units are near-completion as the same may give greater benefits for such phases (because such phases may be handed over to new developers/applicants for completion and these prospective applicants may lose interest if certain units are already handed over). Hence, it was noted that the single stringent 66% voting, that too for the whole project and not phase-wise, “may defeat the purpose and objectives of the said amendment.”[23]
Coming to Issue 2 of giving possession to the allottees on an “as is where is” basis, it was observed by the Board the same is ‘tricky’[24] as it transfers the responsibility of completion of the units and its services to the homebuyer from the CD. Now although a homebuyer may be willing to develop the unit further themselves after taking possession on such a basis, in reality, they may not have the capability/expertise to undertake the “safe completion” of such units nor they may understand the risks of such non-completion.[25] To elucidate on this aspect, let us take the following situation:-
- A unit on the ground floor of a certain phase of the project is handed over to allottee Mr. A, a teacher, on an “as is where is” basis. Now if the unit on the ground floor is not safely constructed (whether it be the walls or the roof of the said unit), it may structurally impact the floors or unit above that particular floor. This situation can become even more peculiar if Mr. A decides to stop working on his allotted unit after taking its possession. Such a situation would jeopardize the work of the CD/allottee on the upper floors who would like to complete such units. Furthermore, it is not only a matter of intention to do work but also whether Mr. A even has the capability and expertise to engage the proper persons for the safe completion of his unit, since unlike the CD (who is regularly engaged in such business), Mr. A is not a regular in the construction business.
As we can see from the above, it can definitely become “tricky” to say the least to hand over non-completed units to the homebuyers on an “as is where is” basis.
The final concern, i.e., Issue 3, that required further deliberation was the fact even when a unit (completed or non-completed) is handed over to a homebuyer, in some cases the same would not extinguish/settle all the claims of the homebuyer.[26] This is because when a unit (even if completed) is handed over to the allottee without the common areas or other amenities of the project being complete as promised to the allottee at the time of booking, such allottee may continue to have claims against the developer/promoter. After all, a homebuyer in a project does not only buy a unit for living purposes but also other factors that enrich the life of a person like the society’s gyms, parks, clubs, etc. Hence, although the aim of this proposal[27] was “a smooth handover of units to the rightful homebuyers” and “to expedite the resolution process and avoid delays due to unnecessary holds-ups” by settling the claim of the homebuyer, the handover may not be so smooth without the other amenities and it may in reality not even settle the full claim of the homebuyer.
In conclusion, all of the above considerations prevented the IBBI from implementing Proposal 3 and allowing the execution of registration/sublease deeds with the approval of the CoC during the CIRP. However, in the next section, we seek to address these very considerations and aim to provide a refurbished proposal that can be implemented more smoothly.
Addressing the Bottlenecks: Refurbishing Proposal 3
From the previous section, we understood that there are primarily three concerns that halted the IBBI from going ahead with Proposal 3. In this section, we shall deal with each of the said concerns one by one, and at the end of the section, we shall provide new proposed amendments.
Empowering the CoC with a flexible voting system
In Issue 1, the concern was two-fold, i.e., (i) single voting for the full project instead of phase-wise voting and (ii) the requirement of 66% approval of CoC. To further break down and simplify Issue 1, the key concern can be pinpointed to the wording of the amendment proposed in the Discussion Paper, which goes as follows:-
“4F. Handing over the possession. After obtaining the approval of the committee with not less than sixty-six percent of the total votes, the resolution professional, shall:
(1) hand over the possession of the plot, apartment, or building or any instruments agreed to be transferred under the real estate project where the allottee has performed his part under the agreement, and facilitate registration; or […]”[28]
While the proposed amendment does not explicitly say that there will be only one single voting/approval for the whole project, a co-joint reading of the chapeau (or the introductory line) and the sub-clause (1) makes it difficult to consider any other style of approval/voting. This is because the wording “shall” in the chapeau read with the phrase “any instrument that were agreed to be transferred” and the phrase “where the allottee has performed his part under the agreement” makes it seem like there can be no sub-classification of instruments (whether based on which phase the unit is located or any other concern) and that once approval of CoC is secured, every such eligible instrument (which has been agreed to be transferred under the agreement to sale and for which the allottee has performed his part under the agreement) would have to be mandatorily handed over to the allottee without any exception. Even if any exception were to be made by the RP or the CoC reasoning that it is beneficial to only transfer certain units and not all units where the homebuyers have done their part, the same would likely be challenged before the Adjudicating Authority for being ultra vires to the regulation. Hence, to make the regulation more suitable the following can be implemented:-
“4[E]. Handing over the possession. After obtaining the approval of the committee with not less than sixty-six percent of the total votes, the resolution professional, shall:
(1) hand over the possession of the plot, apartment, or building or any instruments agreed to be transferred under the real estate project where the allottee has performed his part under the agreement, and facilitate registration; or […]
[Explanation – For the purpose of this regulation, approval of the committee may either be sought with respect to all such eligible instruments in the project or with respect to only a part of such eligible instruments in the project, as per the discretion of the committee.]”
By introducing the afore-said explanation, the CoC will now be explicitly empowered to vote upon such eligible instruments phase-wise, floor-wise, or even in a staggered manner. This way it would be possible to secure a higher rate of approval for phases/units that are almost complete without prejudicing the phases/units that may benefit more from the prospective resolution plans.
Now coming to the ‘stringency’ of the requirement of 66% of total votes, the same is significantly resolved when the voting can be conducted phase-wise or in a staggered manner as now the worry of homebuyers and/or creditors voting against transfer proposals would be lesser as the units/instruments they would want to go under resolution plans can be segregated. Furthermore, it must be noted that the sale of unencumbered assets under Regulation 29 of CIRP Regulations[29] and various actions under Section 28 of the IBC, including change of ownership interest of CD,[30] require a 66% voting. Hence, it may not be correct for an action of registration/execution of a sale deed, which is of a similar nature to actions referred to in Section 28 of the IBC or Regulation 29 to be subject to less than the 66% voting criteria.
In conclusion, as long as we introduce an explanation that allows the CoC to have a flexible voting system (phase-wise, floor-wise, staggered form, etc.), it will significantly resolve most of the concerns that were highlighted in the Board Comments and there would not be a need to reduce the requirement of the 66% voting, which in any event seems suitable for such an action. Thus, with the above proposal, Issue 1 stands resolved.
Transferring only those units on an “as is where is” basis where only interior work is remaining
In Issue 2, the main concern is that (i) the homebuyer has to be capable and equipped with the expertise to do development work, which is usually not the case; and (ii) that the homebuyer must not abandon the work mid-way as that may negatively impact or delay the other units of the project. Both of these concerns can be resolved by simply limiting the transfer of units on an “as is where is” basis to only those units where substantial work is completed and the remaining work is only interior work or work of such nature which even on non-completion does not affect the safety or progress of other units. Furthermore, to decide of whether a unit is structurally suitable and safe, the local authorities which issue occupancy or completion certificates can be engaged to determine the same. The same can be expressed as follows:-
“4[E]. Handing over the possession. After obtaining the approval of the committee with not less than sixty-six percent of the total votes, the resolution professional, shall:
[…]
(2) provide an option to the allottees to acquire such units [on an “as is where is” basis and undertake the completion of such a unit from the balance of funds not paid by the allottee]or on payment of balance required to complete the unit during the process.
[Provided that the option to acquire units on an “as is where is basis” shall be provided for only those units where the work pending is of such nature that its completion/non-completion does not affect the progress or structural integrity of any other unit or the project and the same shall be certified by the relevant local authority.]
[…]”
By the introduction of the above, the concerns in the Board Comments relating to the “as is where is” basis transfer would be solved suitably and there would be no negative impact even if the allottee proceeds to not work/complete the acquired unit. Hence, Issue 2 stands suitably resolved.
Transfer of units to be treated as final settlement of all the claims
In Issue 3, the central concern was that even after the successful handover of a unit to an allottee, the said allottee may continue to have claims against the CD due to him not getting common areas and other amenities of the project that may have been promised to him at the time of booking. However, to deal with this concern, a waiver clause can be inserted in the following manner:
“4[E]. Handing over the possession. After obtaining the approval of the committee with not less than sixty-six percent of the total votes, the resolution professional, shall:
[…]
[Provided that if an allottee chooses to exercise the option of a unit being handed over to him in accordance with this regulation, then the same shall be considered to be the full and final settlement of all his claims against the corporate debtor and that all his other claims would be deemed to be waived.]
Provided [further] that the units which are under possession of the allottees, shall not be part of the assets of the corporate debtor.
[…]”
While it may argued that the allottee being forced to waive his other claims based on common areas and other amenities may be unfair to the allottee, it is a tactical decision that an allottee must make. In case an allottee chooses to take possession of a unit in accordance with the above regulation, his unit is safe from the liquidation proceedings, wherein the homebuyers are merely unsecured financial creditors and usually do not receive the desired payments. In essence, it would be a tactical decision on the part of the allottee to waive his ancillary and not-so-important claims in exchange for safeguarding his unit (which has probably spent his life savings on) during possible liquidation proceedings. The aim of the IBC is to resolve as many claims as possible in a time-bound manner[31] and maximize the value of a company in the CIRP and liquidation processes,[32] and by the introduction of such an amendment not only would existing claims be resolved but homebuyers would also be better protected in possible liquidation proceedings. Hence, the above proposal would suitably resolve Issue 3.
ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS AND THE “FINAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT”
Apart from the primary concerns in terms of Issue 1, Issue 2, and Issue 3, there were certain other beneficial additions that were suggested in the Board Comments.[33] The first addition that was suggested was the inclusion of the condition precedent of securing an occupancy certificate from local authorities before handing over a unit to the allottee under the said regulation. The second suggestion was to the words “as date of issue of Request for Resolution Plan or such other date thereafter as the Committee of Creditors shall appoint” after the words “possession of allottees” in the proviso of the proposed amendment. Considering these suggestions and amalgamating them suitably with all the previous suggestions, we arrive at the following “Final Proposed Amendment”:-
“4[E]. Handing over the possession. After obtaining the approval of the committee with not less than sixty-six percent of the total votes, the resolution professional, shall:
(1) hand over the possession of the plot, apartment, or building or any instruments agreed to be transferred under the real estate project where the allottee has performed his part under the agreement, and facilitate registration [of the plot, apartment, or building, as the case may be, subject to the issue of occupancy certificate for the apartment or building in accordance with local laws]; or
(2) provide an option to the allottees to acquire such units [on an “as is where is” basis and undertake the completion of such a unit from the balance of funds not paid by the allottee]or on payment of balance required to complete the unit during the process.
[Provided also that the option to acquire units on an “as is where is basis” shall be provided for only those units where the work pending is of such nature that its completion/non-completion does not affect the progress or structural integrity of any other unit or the project and the same shall be certified by the relevant local authority.]
[Provided further that if an allottee chooses to exercise the option of a unit being handed over to him in accordance with this regulation, then the same shall be considered to be the full and final settlement of all his claims against the corporate debtor and that all his other claims would be deemed to be waived.]
Provided [also] that the units which are under possession of the allottees [as date of issue of Request for Resolution Plan or such other date thereafter as the Committee of Creditors shall appoint], shall not be part of the assets of the corporate debtor.
[Explanation 1 – For the purpose of this regulation, approval of the committee may either be sought with respect to all such eligible instruments/units in the project or with respect to only a part of such eligible instruments/units in the project, as per the discretion of the committee.
Explanation [2] – for the purposes of handing over the possession, the allottees are required to pay all applicable charges or do all the compliances as per the terms of the sale deed or allotment letter or any instrument for transfer and possession of the sale deed which shall not be inconsistent with the applicable laws.”
Furthermore, even if concerns still remain with respect to the “as is where is” transfer, and IBBI thinks that it requires much more in-depth deliberation on that particular aspect, it should at the very least implement the other parts of the proposal as transfer of units where the CoC has approved the same and allottees have done their part is beneficial for both homebuyer and the CD. In light of the same, at the very least the IBBI should implement the Final Proposed Amendment after omitting sub-regulation 2 and the first proviso of the same.
CONCLUSION & WAY FORWARD
In light of the persistent issues plaguing homebuyers in real-estate insolvencies, this article aimed to analyze the important non-implemented Proposal 3 of the IBBI Discussion Paper and refurbish the same to make it more suitable for implementation.
The article began by briefly introducing the real-estate insolvency sector and the plight faced by homebuyers in such insolvencies. Then it proceeded to elucidate upon the discussion paper released by IBBI and the February 2024 amendments, specifically focusing on the un-implemented proposal of allowing the RP to execute registration/sublease deeds in favor of the allottees with approval of CoC during CIRP, i.e., Proposal 3. This part was followed by an analysis of the Boards Comments of IBBI which were the likely reason behind the proposal not being implemented. Lastly, after thoroughly considering all the practical issues and concerns, the article attempted to provide a refurbished Final Proposed Amendment so that the same can be implemented without much difficulty.
Conclusively, it is hoped that the suggestions given in this paper, in the form of the Final Proposed Amendment, will be considered and implemented by the IBBI in the near future. At the very least it is hoped that even if the “as is where is” basis transfer is not implemented, at least the execution of the sale deed/registration of such flats where the allottees have done their part of the agreement be allowed so that the position of the homebuyer in such real-estate insolvencies is improved and they are not deprived of their life-savings in an unfavorable liquidation process.
[1] Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Act 16 of 2016) (RERA 2016).
[2] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Act 31 of 2016) (IBC 2016).
[3] Shweta Bharti and Jatin Chadda, ‘Journey of Home Buyers under IBC’ (Bar and Bench, 7 May 2024) <https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/journey-of-home-buyers-under-ibc> accessed 13 September 2024.
[4] Chitra Sharma v Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine SC 874.
[5] Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v Union of India (2019) 8 SCC 416 [61].
[6] Sandeep Bhuraria and Parijat, ‘The Paradigm Of Real Estate Insolvencies: Judicial Trends, Roadblocks, And The Way Ahead’ (Live Law, 27 March 2024) <https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/journey-of-home-buyers-under-ibc> accessed 13 September 2024.
[7] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Act 31 of 2016) (IBC 2016), s 53.
[8] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), ‘Discussion Paper- Real Estate Related Proposals – CIRP and Liquidation’ (2024), 6 November 2023, p 1 <https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/public_comments/Discussion_Paper_Real_Estate_November2023_Final.pdf> accessed 13 September 2024.
[9] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024, IBBI/2023-24/GN/REG113: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024, IBBI/2023-24/GN/REG112.
[10] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), IBBI/2016-17/GN/REG004.
[11] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, IBBI/2016-17/GN/REG005.
[12] Anand Vardhan and Piyush Raj Jain, ‘Reforming Real Estate CIRPs: IBBI’s Step to Protect Homebuyers’ (RMLNLU Law Review Blog, 5 April 2024) <https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2024/04/05/reforming-real-estate-cirps-ibbis-step-to-protect-homebuyers/> accessed 13 September 2024.
[13] See below Section II and Section III.
[14] IBC 2016, s 14.
[15] Alok Sharma v IP construction (P) Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 246.
[16] Discussion Paper (n 8) p 4.
[17] Discussion Paper (n 8) p 4.
[18] Discussion Paper (n 8) pp 4-5.
[19] Discussion Paper (n 8) pp 4.
[20] Discussion Paper (n 8) p 4.
[21] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, ‘Amendments to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation) Regulations, 2016 – Gist of Public Comments on Discussion Paper on Real-Estate’ (2024) <https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/public_comments/Real-Estate-Comments-on%20Comments_approved-06-11-2023.pdf> accessed 13 September 2024.
[22] Public Comments on Discussion Paper (n 21) p 4.
[23] Public Comments on Discussion Paper (n 21) p 4.
[24] Public Comments on Discussion Paper (n 21) p 5.
[25] Public Comments on Discussion Paper (n 21) p 5.
[26] Public Comments on Discussion Paper (n 21) p 5.
[27] Discussion Paper (n 8) p 4.
[28] Discussion Paper (n 8) p 4.
[29] CIRP Regulations, reg 29.
[30] IBC 2016, s 28.
[31] Accord Life Spec Private Limited v Orchid Pharma Limited 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1425 [58]; Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. v Educomp Solutions Ltd (CoC) (2022) 2 SCC 401 [155].
[32] Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd v Educomp Solutions Ltd (CoC) (2022) 2 SCC 401 [96]; ICICI Bank Ltd v Punj Lloyd Ltd 2023 SCC OnLine NCLT 851 [41]; Resolution Professional for Essar Steel India Ltd In re 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 750 [8]; Accord Life Spec Private Limited v Orchid Pharma Limited 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1425 [10].
[33] Public Comments on Discussion Paper (n 21) pp 4-5.
(Arun Raghuram Mahapatra is a law undergraduate from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala. The author may be contacted via email at arunraghurammahapatra21013@rgnul.ac.in.)
Cite as: Arun Raghuram Mahapatra, A Case for Transferring Property to Deserving Allottees during Real-Estate CIRP: Refurbishing IBBI’s Proposal, 11th April 2025 <https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2025/04/11/a-case-for-transferring-property-to-deserving-allottees-during-real-estate-cirp-refurbishing-ibbis-proposal/> date of access.