Mr. Navin M. Raheja vs Vipul Jain And Ors. & Ors.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2168 of 2024 &
I.A. No. 8086, 8087, 8088, 8089 of 2024 & 765, 1732, 2076, 2080,
2959, 3201, 4560, 5006, 6363 of 2025
(Arising out of Order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi in (IB)
No.239(PB)/2023)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Navin M. Raheja …Appellant

Versus
Vipul Jain & Ors. …Respondents

Present:
For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. Nagesh, Sr.
Adv. With Manmeat Kaur, Rohan Anand, Kholi
R., Adv
For Respondents : Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Manu Chaturvedi,
Advocates for R1 to 43
Mr. Bajaji Subramanium, Anchit Sharma, Akash
K., Md. Faraz Khan, Adv. in I.A No. 765 of 2025
Mr. Abhay Kaushik, Himani Babbar, Manimdra
Tiwari, Adv. for IRP
Mr. Tewari, Adv. for I.A No. 389, 5557, 2050
Mr. Chitranshul A Sinha, Shivam Shorewala,
Rakshita Bhargava, Archie Garg, Esha Sharma,
Adv.
Mr. Kaushtaubh Sinha, Adv. for I.A No. 6270 of
2025
Mr. Atul Sharma, Renuka Iyer, Anmol Bansal,
Adv. for I.A No. 1316
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Raveena Panikar, Adv. for I.A
No. 2959 of 2025
Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Atul Sharma, Ms. Renuka Iyer, Mr. Anmol
Bansal, Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, Mr. Arpit Paul,
Advocates for EARCL.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 1

J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This Appeal by Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor (“ CD ”)
has been filed challenging the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by National
Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi admitting Section 7
petition filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 43 – Financial Creditors in a class
and allottees of project ‘Raheja Shilas (Low Rise)’, situated at Sector 109,
Gurugram, Haryana being developed by the CD – M/s Raheja Developers
Ltd.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the Appeal are:
(i) The CD – M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. lodged residential
project namely – ‘Raheja Shilas (Low Rise)’. The CD has also
obtained the license from Directorate of Town Country
Planning, Haryana (“ DTCP ”) for developing the residential
group housing colony dated 07.11.2007. The Financial
Creditors in a class, Applicants (Respondent Nos.1 to 43
herein) showed willingness to take allotment of units.
Respondent Nos.1 to 43 were allotted different units and
Builder Buyer Agreement was entered. Under the Builder
Buyer Agreement, the possession of units were to be received
by 2012-13. The Respondents claimed to have made
substantial payment as per Builder Buyer Agreement.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 2

(ii) Respondent Nos.1 to 43 filed a petition under Section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as the “ IBC ”) being CP(IB) No.239(PB)/2023 in August
2023 alleging default on the part of the CD. Total amount
claimed with regard to 43 Applicants were mentioned in Part-
IV of the application and different dates of default were
mentioned with regard to different Applicants.
(iii) Notice was issued in Section 7 petition by the Adjudicating
Authority. The Respondent appeared before the Adjudicating
Authority and filed their reply. Applicants have also filed
their rejoinder. The Adjudicating Authority framed three
issued in Paragraph 5 (i) of the impugned order, which are as
follows:
a. Whether the Project ‘Raheja Shilas Low Rise
constitutes an independent project or it is a part of
Group Housing Colony Project as contended by CD?
b. Whether there is a default on the part of the CD in
not handing over the possession of units of impugned
project is `attributable to the CD or is hit by the
clause of force majeure?
c. Whether the essential ingredients of ‘debt’ and
‘default’ have been established in the facts and
circumstances of the case?”
(iv) The Adjudicating Authority after answering issues, came to
the conclusion that debt is due and the CD committed
default, the possession was to be given in 2012-14 with a
grace period of six months, which has not been given. The
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 3

debt had been acknowledged by various emails and default is
continuing. It was also noticed that Occupation Certificate is
not being received. The Applicants fulfilled the statutory
threshold of 10% of 100 (whichever is less). The Adjudicating
Authority by the impugned order admitted Section 7
application and appointed Mr. Manindra Kumar Tiwari as
Interim Resolution Professional (“ IRP ”) (Respondent No.45
herein).
3. This Appeal came for consideration before this Tribunal on
21.11.2024. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that
Section 7 application relates to only Project “Raheja Shilas( Low Rise)’
situated at Sector-109, Gurugram, Haryana and the Respondents herein
themselves prayed to the Adjudicating Authority to commence the
insolvency with regard to the Project to which the Applicants were
concerned. It was submitted that issue pertaining to Electricity Dues
have been now solved and No Objection Certificate (“ NoC ”) has been
issued, the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Haryana has also
been requested to issue Occupancy Certificate. Considering the
submissions of the Appellant as well as learned Counsel for the
Respondents and the Intervenors, this Tribunal passed an order on
21.11.2024, wherein following directions were issued in Paragraphs 8 and
11:
“ 8. Considering the facts of the present case, we are of the view
that for the time being as was prayed by the Applicant/Respondent
herein, the insolvency may convene to one Project namely `Raheja
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 4

Shilas (Low Rise)’. Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) may collate
the claims with regard to the Project and submit the Status Report.
IRP shall take all endeavour with the assistance and management
of employees of the Corporate Debtor to obtain the OC and do other
completion which are required for handing over the Project to the
Allottees.
11. Status Report be filed within four weeks by the IRP. IRP apart
from the collation of the claims, in pursuance of the Order dated
19.11.2024 may not take any further steps, however, IRP shall take
all necessary steps with the cooperation and management with
regard to completion of shortcomings which have been pointed out
by the Advocate Commissioner in its Report and to obtain the OC.”
4. The Appellant filed affidavits as directed by this Tribunal and
Status Report was also filed by the IRP. On 06.05.2025, this Tribunal
noted the submission of the Appellant that all necessary requirement for
the project- Raheja Shilas (Low Rise) was completed and homebuyers also
expressed their agreement to take possession of the units and also for
compensation for delayed possession charges as per the Builder Buyer
Agreement. Applications filed by several other Applicants with respect to
other projects was also noticed. On 20.05.2025, this Tribunal issued a
direction to the DTCP to consider the prayer for issuing the Occupancy
Certificate. A Status Report was also filed by the IRP. A direction was
issued that after Occupancy Certificate and licence renewal, the developer
under the supervision of the IRP shall handover possession of the units.
Direction issued by this Tribunal in Paragraph 18 is as follows:
“ 18. We further are of the view that after Occupancy Certificate and
licence renewal, the developer under the supervision of the IRP
shall handover possession of the units within a further period of 1
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 5

month. The IRP having not collated the delay compensation
charges, the appellant may compute the delay compensation
charges payable to each individual homebuyers as per the BBA and
communicate the details of the delay compensation charges
payable to the homebuyers to the IRP, who shall upload the same
on the website for information of all homebuyers. The outstanding
amount payable by the individual homebuyers be also reflected in
the details so as to set off the same from the delay compensation
charges payable by the individual homebuyers. All above steps be
completed within a period of 3 months form today. Necessary
Compliance Report by the parties may be filed before the next date
of hearing.”
5. On 24.09.2025, this Tribunal noticed in the order that Occupancy
Certificate has been received, which was brought on the record along
with additional affidavit. Subsequent orders were passed by this
Tribunal, including the order dated 27.10.2025, where it was noticed that
homebuyers had taken possession of certain units and certain documents
are yet to be executed. On 18.12.2025, this Tribunal also noticed that 33
homebuyers were handed over possession. A Status Report was also filed
by the IRP. The Appeal was heard by this Tribunal on 02.03.2026, on
which date, orders were reserved.
6. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned Senior Counsel and
Shri P. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant; Shri
Samar Bansal and Shri Manu Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 to 43. Learned Counsel for various Intervenors; Shri
Krishnendu Datta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for EARCL; learned
Counsel for IRP and IRP has also appeared in person.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 6

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the Appeal submits
that on account of various orders passed by this Tribunal in the present
Appeal to facilitate resolving of all issues between the parties,
substantially all issues have been resolved. The Occupancy Certificate
received from DTCP Haryana and possession have also been handed over
to the homebuyers, including Respondent Nos.1 to 43 of their units. The
IRP has also calculated delay compensation to which the Respondents
were entitled and issues with regard to only two Respondents regarding
their calculations on delay compensation have been left. It is submitted
that the object of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“ CIRP ”) is to
resolve the CD. It is submitted that the Financial Creditors in a class
being allottees of only one project, namely - Raheja Shilas (Low Rise), the
admission of Section 7 application ought to have been confined to only
the project, in which the Applicants were allotted the units. Before the
Adjudicating Authority, this issue was raised by the CD that CIRP if any,
should be commenced only against the project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise). It
is further submitted that Applicants themselves have stated before the
Adjudicating Authority that CIRP be confined to the project in which the
Applicants are concerned. However, the Adjudicating Authority passed an
order admitting Section 7 application initiating CIRP against the CD,
which ought to have been confined to only project in question. It is
submitted that this Tribunal has passed an interim order in this Appeal,
where CIRP has been confined to only project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise). It
is submitted that substantial issues having already been resolved, there
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 7

shall be no purpose to continue the CIRP against the CD and the CIRP
proceedings need to be closed.
8. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 43 (who initiated the
proceedings) contended that issues raised by Respondent Nos.1 to 43
have not been resolved. The delay possession charges to be paid by the
CD, should be computed on terms of Builder Buyers Agreement, without
judgment decree or recovery certificate and delay possession
compensation should be calculated in terms of the decree or recovery
certificate issued by Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“ RERA ”) and
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“ NCDRC ”) etc. It is
further submitted that units handed over are to be registered in the name
of homebuyers. Respondent Nos.21 and 27 have filed an IA No.6363 of
2025 stating that amount under delay possession compensation is not
acceptable. It was however admitted by learned Counsel for Respondent
Nos.1 to 43 that all allottees have been able to acquire possession of their
respective units. The delay possession compensation as per the IRP final
list, has not been released to any of the allottees, even after handing over
all the units. Electricity dues of approximately Rs.42 lakhs remain
unpaid to the DHBVN and only an interim electricity order of electricity of
900-1000 KV has been acquired, which is insufficient for entire project,
comprising of 94 units. All project related issues pointed out by the IRP
in the Status Report remain pending. Learned Counsel for Respondent
Nos.1 to 43, thus, have not expressed its satisfaction on resolving of all
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 8

the issues between the parties and have constantly expressed their
dissatisfaction.
9. Learned Counsel for the IRP has also raised various issues in its
Status Report. The IRP however submitted that IRP has taken steps in
compliance of the orders issued by this Tribunal in the present Appeal
from time to time. The IRP has also in the Status Report has brought all
events and materials on record.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for various Intervenors contended that
they are allottees in other projects of the CD and there is no clarity as to
whether Section 7 proceedings initiated by allottees of other project need
to be proceeded. It is submitted that in view of interim order passed in
this Appeal, the proceedings under Section 7 initiated by allottees of other
projects are stand still and they are not able to proceed. Learned Counsel
appearing for various Intervenors also have submitted that the
proceedings initiated against the CD are not being proceeded with. It is
submitted on behalf of the Intervenors that the proceedings initiated by
the allottees of other projects may be permitted to be proceeded with and
decided in accordance with law, which aspect needs to be clarified in this
judgment.
11. From the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and
materials on record, following are the questions, which arise for
consideration in tis Appeal:
(I) Whether the Financial Creditors in a class in their Section 7
application being (IB)No.239(PB)/2023 have been able to
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 9

prove debt and default on the part of the CD, so as to initiate
CIRP against the CD?
(II) Whether the CIRP against the CD ought to have been
confined to the project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise), in which
project, Respondent Nos.1 to 43 Financial Creditor in a class
had received the units?

(III) Whether Respondent Nos.1 to 43 having received possession
of their units, the CIRP initiated by the impugned order needs
to be closed?
(IV) Whether Intervention Applications filed by Financial Creditor
in a class of other projects of the CD, are entitled to prosecute
their Section 7/9 applications before the Adjudicating
Authority?
Question Nos.(I) and (II)
Both the questions being interrelated, are being taken together.
12. Part-IV of Section 7 application, gives details pertaining to each of
the Applicants and the amount in default. Part-IV of Section 7
application mentions total amount paid and the number of the unit
allotted to each of the Applicants. For example, Vipul Jain and Rachna
Jain unit No. is IF3-02 and the total amount paid is Rs.59,07,450/-. In
Column -1. In Column-2 of Part-IV, total amount claimed in default with
respect to Vipul Jain and Rachna Jain mentioned as Rs.1,87,48,141/-
and date of start of default is mentioned as 06.03.2012. Accordingly,
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 10

details with regard to all the Respondent – Financial Creditor in a class,
the units allotted to them, the amount paid by them and the amount
claimed to be in default are mentioned. In Part-V, copy of Allotment
Letter, Agreement to Sell and copy of Statement of Account and
calculations are mentioned.
13. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order after considering
the submissions of the parties on Question Nos.(b) and (c) has held that
default on the part of the CD in not handing over the possession is proved
and further essential ingredients of ‘debt’ and ‘default’ is also proved.
After answering both the above questions, the Adjudicating Authority has
held that debt and default is proved, the possession was to be given in the
year 2012-2014 with a grace period of 6 months and the debt has been
acknowledged by various emails and default is continuing. On the
aforesaid findings, Section 7 application was admitted. We, thus, do not
find any error in the order of Adjudicating Authority in initiation of CIRP
against the CD.
14. Now, we come to Question No.(II), whether the CIRP against the CD
ought to have been confined to the project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise), in
which project, Respondent Nos.1 to 43 Financial Creditor in a class
claimed allotment.
15. When the Appeal was heard, this Tribunal on 21.11.2024 passed an
order, where in Paragraph 3, following was observed:
“ 3. The submission which has been raised by the Counsel for the
Appellant is that the Applicants who had filed Section 7 Application
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 11

relates to only Project `Raheja Shilas (Low Rise)’ situated at Sector
109, Gurugram, Haryana and they had themselves prayed to the
Adjudicating Authority to commence the insolvency with regard to
the Project to which the Applicants were concerned.”

16. There is no dispute between the parties that the CD has launched
various projects apart from project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise). Various IAs
have been filed in the present Appeal by allottees of different projects
seeking directions with regard to other projects of the CD. The question,
which needs to be answered in the present case is as to whether, the CIRP
ought to have been confined only to the project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise).
In a recent judgment of this Tribunal decided on 07.01.2026 in Company
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 500 of 2025 in Gagan Tandon & Ors. vs.
IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. , the question regarding
commencement of CIRP against a real-estate company, when it has more
than one project, came for consideration. This Tribunal in the above
judgment in Paragraphs 77 and 78, made following observations:
“ 77. We are conscious that CIRP proceedings are not proceedings
of repayment of dues or recovery of dues by the Financial
Institutions and the object is to revive and rehabilitate the CD.
When CIRP has commenced against a real estate project, the
resolution, rehabilitation and revival of the project become
necessary to safeguard interest of stakeholders, specially the
allottees, who have been allotted residential/ commercial plots by
the CD. In the present case, the CD, who has been developing
different projects at the City of Lucknow and other cities, has
allotted units to different Homebuyers and allottees of residential
and commercial assets. For resolution of a real estate project, the
interest of the Homebuyers has to be taken care and the Courts
have always taken steps to protect the interests of Homebuyers. We
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 12

in this context refer to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and Anr. –
Civil Appeal No.3826 of 2020 and other Appeals decided on
12.09.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case was also
considering an Appeal arising out of CIRP of a real estate project. In
Paragraph 15.2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated certain
principles, which notices that IBC is a Forum of last resort,
intended to secure revival and completion of viable projects, not to
serve as a debt recovery mechanism. In Paragraph-15.2, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down following:
“15.2. In this necessary in this backdrop to reiterate
certain settled principles:
• RERA remains the primary forum for
redressal of homebuyers’ grievances;
• The IBC is a forum of last resort, intended to
secure revival and completion of viable
projects, not to serve as a debt recovery
mechanism; and
• Consumer forums should confine themselves
to adjudicating individual service deficiencies,
thereby avoiding conflicting or overlapping
orders across multiple fora.
78. In paragraph 15.5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further
observed that a balance judicial approach will have far-reaching
benefits. In Paragraph-15.5, following was observed:
“15.5. A balanced judicial approach in this regard will have
farreaching benefits: protecting homebuyers, restoring
confidence in the real estate market, and encouraging
reputed business houses and conglomerates to participate in
residential development. In taking this approach, this Court
seeks to contribute towards cleansing and strengthening a
core economic sector that sustains millions of livelihoods in
both the organised and unorganised economy and touches
the lives of people at their most fundamental level.””
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 13

17. In the above judgment, an earlier judgment of this Tribunal in
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 926 of 2019 – Flat Buyers
Association Winter Hills – 77, Gurgaon vs. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd.
through IRP & Ors. was noticed. In Paragraph 85, 86 and 87, following
was held:
“85. The above Regulations, even after amendments as noted
above, throw very little light over the complexities and difficulties,
which arise in the resolution of the real estate project, undertaken
by a real estate Company. There have been several precedence of
this Tribunal, where this Tribunal had occasion to consider the
resolution of a real estate project. The judgment of this Tribunal in
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 926 of 2019 – Flat Buyers
Association Winter Hills – 77, Gurgaon vs. Umang Realtech Pvt.
Ltd. through IRP & Ors. is one of such cases, where this Tribunal
has noticed the problems in following certain process in the cases
of infrastructure companies (for allottees). In Paragraphs 9 and 10
of the judgment, following observations have been made:
“9. In terms of the ‘I&B Code’ and the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ‘Resolution Plan’ must
maximise the assets of the Corporate Debtor and balance
the stakeholders (secured and unsecured creditors-
Financial Creditors/ Operational Creditors).
10. The Infrastructure which is constructed for the allottees
by Corporate Debtor (Infrastructure Company) is an asset of
the Corporate Debtor. The assets of the Corporate Debtor as
per the Code cannot be distributed, which are secured for
‘Secured Creditors’. On the contrary, allottees (Homebuyers)
who are ‘Unsecured Creditors’, the assets of the Corporate
Debtor which is the Infrastructure, is to be transferred in
their favour (‘Unsecured Creditors’) and not to the ‘Secured
Creditors’ such as Financial Institutions/ Banks/ NBFCs.”
86. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case has also noticed
the concept of “reverse corporate insolvency resolution process”.
This Tribunal in the above judgment, which was delivered on
04.02.2020 had observed that in the CIRP against a real estate, if
allottees (Financial Creditors) or Financial Institutions are of one
project initiated CIRP against the CD, it be confined to the
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 14

particular project and it cannot affect other projects of the real
estate company in other places. In Paragraph 21 of the judgment,
following was laid down:
“21. In Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a
real estate, if allottees (Financial Creditors) or Financial
Institutions/Banks (Other Financial Creditors) or
Operational Creditors of one project initiated Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor
(real estate company), it is confined to the particular project,
it cannot affect any other project(s) of the same real estate
company (Corporate Debtor) in other places where separate
plan(s) are approved by different authorities, land and its
owner may be different and mainly the allottees (financial
creditors), financial institutions (financial creditors,
operational creditors are different for such separate project.
Therefore, all the asset of the company (Corporate Debtor)
are not to be maximized. The asset of the company
(Corporate Debtor – real estate) of that particular project is
to be maximized for balancing the creditors such as
allottees, financial institutions and operational creditors of
that particular project. Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process should be project basis, as per approved plan by the
Competent Authority. Any other allottees (financial creditors)
or financial institutions/ banks (other financial creditors) or
operational creditors of other project cannot file a claim
before the Interim Resolution Professional of other project
and such claim cannot be entertained.
So, we hold that Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process against a real estate company (Corporate Debtor) is
limited to a project as per approved plan by the Competent
Authority and not other projects which are separate at other
places for which separate plans approved. For example – in
this case the Winter Hill – 77 Gurgaon Project of the
‘Corporate Debtor’ has been place of Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process. If the same real estate company
(Corporate Debtor herein) has any other project in another
town such as Delhi or Kerala or Mumbai, they cannot be
clubbed together nor the asset of the Corporate Debtor
(Company) for such other projects can be maximised.”
87. This Tribunal in the above case has held that “if the same real
estate company (Corporate Debtor herein) has any other project in
another town such as Delhi or Kerala or Mumbai, they cannot be
clubbed together nor the asset of the Corporate Debtor (Company) for
such other projects can be maximized” . The above judgment of this
Tribunal, thus, has clearly observed that when the CIRP by
allottees or Financial Institutions relates to one project, it should
be confined to that project. The above proposition, thus, is fully
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 15

supported by precedence of this Tribunal, hence, we have no
hesitation to hold that when CIRP initiated by allottees or Financial
Institutions, under Section 7 relates to one project, the CIRP has to
be confined to the said project and cannot take into its fold, the
other real estate projects, situated in other cities or other States.”
18. In the judgment of this Tribunal in Flat Buyers Association
Winter Hills (Paragraph 21) was quoted with approval by this Tribunal,
where this Tribunal has held that in a CIRP against the real-estate
company, if allottees/ Financial Creditors or Financial Institutions are
Operational Creditors of one project have initiated a CIRP against the CD,
it should be confined to the particular project and it cannot affect any
other project. Thus, the above proposition of law as laid down in Flat
Buyers Association Winter Hills was again been reiterated in the
judgment of Gagan Tandon . Gangan Tandon was a case where IL& FS
Financial Services Ltd. – Financial Creditor has initiated proceedings
under Section 7. It was held by this Tribunal in the above case that
IL&FS has obtained various securities from the CD and CIRP should
confine only to those projects in which Financial Creditor has securities.
The CD was holding various projects in different States and different
Cities and the State of UP, were not to be affected. The conclusions were
recorded in Paragraph 110 of the said judgment. The above judgment
fully supports the submissions of the Appellant that allottees being only
to the project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise), the CIRP should confine to the
project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise) only. We, thus, are satisfied that the
impugned order needs to be modified, confining the CIRP to the project
Raheja Shilas (Low Rise) only.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 16

Question No.(III)
19. We having taken the view that CIRP initiated by the impugned
order, needs to be confined to the project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise) of the
CD, it shall be open for the allottees of other projects and Financial
Creditors in class and other Financial Institutions to pursue their
appropriate proceedings under Section 7 against the CD and the order
passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 19.11.2024 as modified by
this order shall not come into the way and Adjudicating Authority shall
proceed to examine applications filed relating to other projects of the CD
in accordance with law.
Question No.(IV)
20. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that possession
having been handed over to all the Respondent Nos.1 to 43, who has
initiated the proceedings, the CIRP needs to be closed. It is further
submitted that the Occupancy Certificate has already been obtained and
after making all necessary payments, no issues are left to be determined.
21. We have already noticed the submissions of learned Counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 43, who has contended that issues
have not been fully solved and there are large number of issues pending
with the CD, are unresolved. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.1 to 43 is consistently raising objection to the statement of the
Appellant regarding resolution of the issues.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 17

22. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 43 having objected for
closure of the CIRP, who have initiated the proceedings, we are of the view
that no order can be passed in this Appeal for closing the CIRP. We only
observe that in event the issues between the CD and the Respondent
Nos.1 to 43 are resolved and any settlement is entered, it shall be open for
Respondent Nos.1 to 43 to file an application under Section 12A for
withdrawal of the CIRP.
23. In view of our foregoing discussions and conclusions, we dispose of
the Appeal in following manner:
(A) The order dated 19.11.2024 passed by Adjudicating Authority
in (IB) No.239(PB)/2023 is modified to the extent that CIRP
against the CD shall confine to its project Raheja Shilas (Low
Rise) only.
(B) The IRP to proceed further in the CIRP including updation of
the creditors claim in accordance with law. The payments to
Financial Creditor in a class in pursuance of the order passed
by this Tribunal, if any, shall be duly reflected in updation of
the claim.
(C) The Financial Creditors in a class and Financial Institutions
with respect to other projects of the CD, are free to prosecute
their independent proceedings against other projects of the
CD, which shall proceed in accordance with law unaffected by
initiation of CIRP by the impugned order with respect to
project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise).
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 18

(D) Liberty is reserved to Respondent Nos.1 to 43 to file Section
12A application, if settlements, are entered between
Respondent Nos.1 to 43 and the Appellant.
Parties shall bear their own costs.


[Justice Ashok Bhushan]
Chairperson


[Barun Mitra]
Member (Technical)


NEW DELHI
th
20 March, 2026


























Ashwani
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2168 of 2024 19