IBC Overrides RERA: MahaRERA Dismisses Homebuyers’ Monetary Claims as Resolution Plan Restricts Relief to Possession
Pranav B Prem
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed two consumer complaints filed by homebuyers seeking interest for delayed possession and monetary compensation against Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., holding that the claims stood extinguished after approval of the Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). MahaRERA held that the purchasers, having been listed as claimants during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), were entitled only to delivery of their apartments as provided in the approved Resolution Plan and not to any additional financial relief.
The order delivered by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik emphasised that once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, including homebuyers, and overrides the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The Authority found that the complainants’ demand for interest, compensation and financial recovery beyond possession was contrary to the terms of the Resolution Plan. The Authority also observed that parallel proceedings being pursued before the Supreme Court amounted to impermissible forum shopping.
According to case records, the complainants — Anish Gupta, Sangita Gupta and Ridhi Gupta — purchased two apartments in 2014 with contractual delivery promised on 31 March 2016. Construction halted in 2017 after Kohinoor CTNL entered CIRP on the basis of a petition filed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, which imposed a moratorium on 16 June 2017. The Resolution Plan was approved on 21 February 2018 and the complainants’ names appeared in the list of homebuyer claims before the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional.
Following completion of the stalled project, a full Occupancy Certificate was issued on 18 January 2023 and possession was formally offered to all allottees. However, the complainants declined possession in June 2022, insisting that they were entitled to interest for delay, ₹1 crore compensation for alleged losses, execution of registered agreements, directions under Section 61 of RERA, revised construction schedule, and compliance disclosures on the RERA portal.
The builder and other respondents — including Edelweiss Global Wealth Management and Edelweiss ARC — submitted that all financial claims not pursued before the Resolution Professional during CIRP stood extinguished once the Resolution Plan was approved. They argued that the complainants never properly invoked their rights under the IBC process and instead challenged the CIRP before the Supreme Court through Writ Petition (C) No. 1236/2017 and SLP (C) No. 3373/2018, both still pending. After completion of the project, they said, possession was duly offered and there was no basis for monetary claims under RERA.
MahaRERA agreed with the respondents and held that the claim of the complainants stood restricted to possession only, as laid down in the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT. The Authority recorded that the complainants were claimants recognised during CIRP and therefore bound by the approved plan. It reiterated that homebuyers cannot seek relief contrary to the terms of a binding Resolution Plan, as the IBC overrides the RERA Act by virtue of Section 238 of the IBC.
Reviewing the Supreme Court’s online record, MahaRERA noted that the complainants’ Special Leave Petition, concerning the same insolvency proceedings, continues to remain pending. In this context, the Authority held that simultaneously pursuing remedies under IBC in the Supreme Court and under RERA amounted to forum shopping, which is impermissible in law. Concluding that the complaints were not maintainable in light of the binding Resolution Plan and ongoing Supreme Court litigation, MahaRERA dismissed both complaints. The homebuyers were held entitled only to possession in accordance with the Resolution Plan, and no further monetary claim could be entertained.
Cause Title: Anish Gupta & Anr. V. Kohinoor Ctnl Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Company & 5 Ors.
Case No: CC006000000197798
Coram: Shri. Manoj Saunik (MahaRERA Chairperson)
