Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member), has closed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd., exercising its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The closure was permitted under the “Reverse CIRP” model upon confirmation that the construction was completed, flats had been handed over to the homebuyers, and all pending claims had been addressed.

Also Read: ITAT Rules, S.148 Income Tax Notice Issued After 31.03.2021 Under Old Regime Invalid Despite TOLA Extension

Background

The appeal was filed by Satish Chander Verma challenging the NCLT New Delhi’s order dated 14.02.2023 in a Section 7 IBC proceeding initiated by certain financial creditors against Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd. While the CIRP was ongoing, Pax Homes LLP (Respondent No. 44) intervened through an I.A. and was allowed by the NCLAT to proceed with construction under a Development Agreement dated 18.11.2011. Consequently, the Tribunal initiated a "Reverse CIRP" process, aiming to prioritize completion of the real estate project and handover of possession to the homebuyers.

In its order dated 26.09.2023, the NCLAT permitted Respondent No. 44 to proceed with construction to ensure delivery of flats. Pax Homes completed the construction and obtained Occupation Certificates dated 10.05.2024 and 22.05.2024. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal verified the completion and confirmed through her report dated 09.08.2024 that the project was in accordance with the affidavit filed by Pax Homes. The report also noted that remaining electronic fittings would be installed as and when occupants came forward to take possession after clearing any balance payments.

Supreme Court’s Direction

During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant, along with the developer and homebuyers, approached the Supreme Court seeking expedited resolution. On 30.05.2025, the Supreme Court directed the NCLAT to dispose of the matter at the earliest, observing that all stakeholders were aligned and the delay was primarily due to the conduct of the Resolution Professional.

Developments and Resolution

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directive, the Resolution Professional filed an updated affidavit dated 10.07.2025 listing five pending claims, including that of the Income Tax Department. However, the claims of all four financial creditors (excluding the Income Tax Department) were subsequently resolved:

• Ayush Jain entered into an MoU dated 21.02.2025, permitting the developer to sell his unit and disburse his share of sale proceeds under MahaRERA's monitoring.

• Mukesh Kumar Agarwal sold his flat (P2-301) to Dr. Manisha Nikam and no longer held any interest in the unit.

• Rohita Dharanendra Hesi had already taken possession of her flat (P3-1204), which was confirmed through RP's email dated 29.05.2025.

• Usha Malik also confirmed possession of her flat (P1-903) through email dated 16.06.2025 and possession letter dated 28.02.2025.

With regard to the Income Tax Department's claim for the assessment year 2015–16, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had deposited the demand amount and secured a stay. Counsel for the department confirmed they had no objection to the CIRP being closed, provided their claim would not be extinguished. The NCLAT recorded that the closure of CIRP would not bar further legal proceedings concerning tax dues.

Observations and Ruling

The NCLAT referred to Sachin Malde v. Hemant Nanji Chheda [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 123 of 2024], where it was held that when there are no outstanding claims, filing a Section 12A application would be a mere formality. The Tribunal reiterated that in appropriate cases, it could invoke inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules to close proceedings, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in GLAS Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024] It also cited Gaurav Bhati v. Smriti Bhatia [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 881 of 2025], reaffirming that in the absence of other creditors, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve disputes and close the CIRP without requiring a Section 12A application.

Also Read: ‘Go To Court’ Attitude Costs Retailer: IHA Designs Directed To Refund And Compensate For Defective Saree

Considering that all units had been delivered and claims addressed, and that no creditor (including statutory authorities) objected to the closure, the Tribunal concluded that “there is nothing left in the matter.” The CIRP was accordingly closed, the Resolution Professional discharged, and the impugned NCLT order dated 14.02.2023 set aside. Additionally, the Contempt Cases (AT) Nos. 14 & 15 of 2024 were also disposed of as the appellant was not inclined to pursue them further.

Appearance

For Appellant : Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kumar, Mr. Piyush Singh, Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Soumain Tandon, Ms. Raveena Paniker, Mr. Suryansh Vashisth, Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Kanika Balhara for RP; Adv. Meghna Rao, Adv. Seoul Shah for R-2 to R-43; Mr. Rakesh Jindal; Mr. Dhaval Deshpande, Mr. Amir Arsiwala for R-44; Mr. Vipul Agarwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, Mr. Utkarsh K.

Cause Title: Satish Chander Verma V. Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 289 of 2023 & I.A. No. 1401, 3827 of 2024 with Contempt Case (AT) No. 14 & 15 of 2024

Coram: Justice Yogesh Khanna [Judicial Member], Mr. Indevar Pandey [Technical Member]