Page Contents
Status as on 24.05.2021
As per a recent survey, over 6.10 Lacs units spread across 1500 Projects which are either stalled projects or delayed projects by over 4-5 years. And there’s no construction work going there. As per a recent article published in Financial Express, the subsequent was the findings:
At the top of 2019, a complete of 1,322 projects comprising about 5.76 lakh units, which were launched in 2013 or before, were stuck at various stages thanks to non-completion within the top seven cities.
However, this number was right down to 1,132 projects comprising about 5.02 lakh units at the top of 2020. the full value of present stuck or delayed housing stock is quite Rs 4.07 lakh crore, in keeping with findings by ANAROCK Property Consultants.
As above, Thousands of units throughout the state are either stuck or delayed. a typical man invests his lifetime hard-earned money in big projects advertised by the developers.
Such projects remain undeveloped for years with none progress at the project site. There are also various reasons for such delay, like, diversion of cash, lack of coming up with, and dispute with the landowner etc.
This can be the foremost convenient and fast way for completion of the project if the intention and therefore the money are infused to finish the pending project within the time-bound process, taking all stakeholders into consideration.
However, after loss of trust, lack of cash and lot of litigation, it becomes very difficult. Another strategy of “Reverse Insolvency” can even be experienced to complete the development.
However, there are various big challenges therein which might be summarized as under:
This is often the foremost secure, practical, and result-oriented process. As per IBC Laws, if any company is unable to pay its debts or within the case of homebuyers, unable to handover the units as per the Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA), then Hon’ble NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) may initiate the Resolution process upon filing the petition u/s 7 or 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC Laws).
There are various cases where assets Company has been resolved or are being resolved under IBC Laws.
Under IBC Laws, just in case of homebuyers, 10% of allottees or 100 buyers whichever is a smaller amount, may file petition u/s 7 of IBC Laws before Hon’ble NCLT to initiate the resolution process.
If NCLT is convinced that default has occurred, and also the application is complete all told aspects, the CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) is initiated. the subsequent are the benefit and challenge analysis:
The resolution process is predicated on the “Creditor-in-Charge” principle. Hence, if the builder is unable to complete the project, the fate of the corporate shall be decided by the creditors (Financial Creditors)
RERA is new set of laws that was enacted to provide a market to the real estate industry and to guard the homebuyers. As per section 8 of the RERA Act, the RERA authority has the ability to cancel the registration of any project and with the prior permission of the respective State Govt. can take over the project.
However, there are only a few instances where such power of take-over has been exercised.
The following are the benefit and challenge analysis:
If we speak about a more practical legal remedy before homebuyers then approaching NCLT is anyway a more robust option available to them. it’s simpler outcomes as compared to it of RERA.
RERA undoubtedly may be a law particularly handling the important estate concern but the execution of RERA orders continues to be a giant question before the system. But even after knowing this fact, buyers’ approach RERA because the RERA Authorities entertain individual complaints.
Since the IBC Laws has an overriding effect and has the legal framework of the whole resolution process, the IBC process through NCLT is more practical, time-bound, practical, and result-oriented.
A right legal remedy comes from the proper legal advice. Getting an honest legal team that shows you the proper legal path is half battle won. Getting delayed justice is not any justice. an honest legal team will facilitate you’re in getting justice on time with an efficient remedy.
In a move that comes as a setback for home buyers, India’s top court, on Lee’s Birthday, 2021, upheld the Constitutional validity of the changes made within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
These amendments said that a minimum of 100 buyers of a project or 10 per cent buyers of the project should jointly file an application, to begin insolvency proceedings against a defaulting builder.
Before the amendment was made to Section 7, under the IBC (Amendment) Act 2020, even a private buyer could file a plea against a builder within the insolvency tribunals.
The amendment to Section 7 provides that home buyers can initiate an insolvency resolution process against the builder jointly by not but 100 such allottees or not but 10 per cent of the whole number of such allottees within the same project.
“In the case of the allottees of a true estate project, it’s the approach of the legislature that in an exceedingly realty project, there would be an oversized number of allottees. There are hundreds or perhaps thousands of allottees in an exceedingly project,” the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) said.
It also said that if one buyer was allowed to manoeuvre insolvency tribunals against a builder, it’s going to pose a risk to the interests of an outsized number of other stakeholders.
“where any one allottee, being a financial creditor, be allowed to manoeuvre an application, the same shall lead to sufferance of interests of all the opposite allottees. a number of them may approach the Authority under the RERA.
Others may, instead, resort to the fora under the Consumer Protection Act, though, the remedy of a causa is, no doubt, not ruled out,” the SC said in its order, while also stating that amendments to Sections 3 and 10 of the Code don’t violate the home buyers’ right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The apex court also justified the amendments to the code, saying buyers have already got a platform within the variety of RERA to approach, just in case of any issues.
While stating that ‘it cannot be in question that under the law, an allottee can seek remedies under the RERA or Consumer Protection Act’, the SC said that “Section 71 of the RERA permits an individual, who has filed a complaint in respect of matters governed by Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the RERA, to withdraw the complaint and file the identical before the adjudicating officer.”
September 25, 2020: Offering a breather to the Coronavirus-hit businessmen in India, the govt., on September 24, 2020, extended the suspension of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for one more three months.
This implies that companies, including property developers, can’t be dragged into insolvency for defaults on credit liabilities between quarter day, 2020 and December 24, 2020. Defaults committed before Lady Day, 2020, won’t be covered under this nine-month grace period.
In June 2020, the company Affairs Ministry announced the move to suspend key provisions of the Code, to supply support to businesses at a time when the economy was fighting against the deadly virus and its impact.
However, to enable itself to increase this suspension of the Code for a period of up to at least one year, the centre has now promulgated an ordinance, to create changes within the IBC. Such a step was required for suspension of Section 7, Section 9 and Section 10 of the IBC.
While Section 7 and Section 9 empower financial creditors and operational creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings against a defaulting company, Section 10 provides the identical right to a company. the govt has also inserted a brand-new section, Section 10A, to empower itself to increase the amount of suspension by up to 1 year.
While the move would offer some cushion to the cash-starved builder community in India that has been at the receiving end of a requirement slowdown for over half a decade now, it’ll curtail the legal remedies available to homebuyers against defaulting developers.
According to Real Insight: Q2 2020, a quarterly analysis of India’s key housing markets by PropTiger.com, housing sales within the April-June period of 2020 dipped by 79% over the identical period last year.
As against 92,764 units within the same period in 2019, only 19,038 units were sold during April-June 2020. As of June 30, 2020, developers also had an unsold inventory of seven,38,335 units across these markets. the govt latest measure would supply cash-hit developers a limited time window, to boost performance, to avoid bankruptcy.
It would, on the opposite hand, curtail the rights that homebuyers enjoy under the insolvency law. Through changes within the Code in 2018 and by insertion of Section 7 in it, the govt brought homebuyers at a par with other creditors in insolvency proceedings against a builder.
This meant that buyers could initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder, similar to banks or contractors. In August 2020, the Supreme Court also upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments within the Code, saying that the RERA and therefore the IBC should add harmony, to safeguard the interests of homebuyers in India.
However, the govt has limited the legal remedies available to home buyers under the IBC, likewise because the RERA, through various measures announced within the backdrop of the COVID-19 situation.
In May 2020, the govt. allowed builders to cite the vis major clause for project delays. because the land (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) states that builders can use the advantages of this clause for up to at least one year, developers will be able to undertake the following route, in order to avoid payment of hefty fine to homebuyers in respect of project delays till May 2021.
Offering similar relief to homebuyers, the govt launched a six-month consumer credit moratorium for borrowers. while non-payment of EMIs during this era won’t be categorised as defaults, the borrower will find yourself paying additional interest, for availing of the relief offered under the moratorium period.
Homebuyers now have the identical privileges as financial institutions, in insolvency proceedings against assets developers, with the Supreme Court (SC) on August 9, 2019, upholding the amendments within the Insolven cy and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that grants buyers the status of economic creditors.
Before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2019, was passed in Parliament, buyers were placed right at the underside of the committee of creditors (CoC), when the resolution plans for sick developers were to be figured out.
Giving its verdict, while casting off a batch of over 180 petitions filed by various builders, the highest court also said the 000 Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, should be interpreted harmonic with the Code. However, just in case of a conflict, the Code should prevail. While asking the centre to require corrective measures, the SC also said only genuine homebuyers can invoke insolvency proceedings against developers.
Before it became evident that strict punishment would be inflicted on them under the provisions of the important estate law, property developers used every trick in their books to lift money from buyers.
This was certainly the simplest possible thanks to collect funds — banks would do a good deal of ‘due diligence’ before they grant a loan, that they might charge a high rate of interest. Non-banking finance companies seemed warmer. However, the speed of interest on the loan that NBFCs charge, is higher.
To entice buyers into investing in assets projects, developers promised them assured returns (small players are still seen doing it). within the commercial property segment, buyers were often promised assured returns of up to 12 per cent. More frequent were instances of sudden stopping of those payments by developers.
In a move that will further tighten the noose around unscrupulous builders who promise assured returns to buyers and stop payments midway, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled that assured returns promised by a developer to a buyer through a correct agreement, is financial debt and therefore the latter can file for an insolvency resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), just in case the previous fails to honour the agreement.
Buyers also can move insolvency tribunals, just in case builders take a lump-sum amount from them and fail to grant possession or pay the money within a time frame. just in case a buyer slid a builder’s verbal promise and didn’t document the pact, he wouldn’t be eligible to assert relief. In short, proper documentation is that the key here.
After holding home-buyers as financial creditors as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted an amendment within the IBC as constitutionally valid, which needs no but 100 or 10% home-buyers to initiate insolvency against builder or developer.
Under the IBC amendment gone the Parliament in March 2020, one home-buyer is barred to approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 7 of the IBC.
There were petitions in SC challenging Section 3 of IBC which has placed differential conditions on home-buyers to initiate corporate insolvency and backbone process (CIRP) against builders.
The amendment and subsequent ruling by the apex court limits the avenues for redress available to aggrieved home-buyers and also defeats the aim of including home-buyers as financial creditors under IBC.
In its order the apex court says, “Sheer numbers of applications that will proliferate, combined with the likely results, cannot be pushed aside.” Section 3 of IBC allows home-buyers to hunt CIRP process against builder only 100 allottees or a minimum of 10% of allottees make a joint application.
This means, home-buyers are now required to approach the NCLT with a joint application of a minimum of 10% or 100 of the full home-buyers of a project. If the numbers of home-buyers are but that, NCLT will dismiss their application ipso facto.
In other words, home-buyers can approach the NCLT against a builder or developer only with a joint application, kind of like the provisions within the Companies Act, where certain actions against a corporation will be activated only by members representing not but 100 members or members holding not but 10% of the share capital.
According to a January 2020 report from the Mint, a bunch of home-buyers have filed multiple writ petitions with the Supreme Court challenging the amendment within the IBC that placed a minimum threshold on the quantity of home-buyers. Such a petition was filed on behalf of 11 home-buyers who were from Noida and Gurgaon. Another writ petition has been filed by Centrik Legalistic on behalf of 5 home-buyers.
Quoting Piyush Singh, partner at PSP Legal, a Delhi-based house, the newspaper says, “Bringing a threshold only for home-buyers is unfair while there’s no threshold for the other financial or operational creditors.
Even one financial or operational creditor (other than home-buyer) can file an application against the corporate with NCLT for starting of the liquidation process.”
Last year in March, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2020 was lapsed the Parliament. At that point, Union minister (FM) Nirmala Sitharaman distinguished that government understands the difficulties being faced by the home-buyers.
“We have shown clear, pro-active initiatives to mapped out the cases which are lying incomplete. We would be providing the last-mile completion related funding and that would be through a single window mechanism,” she had said.
The minister had also said that the quantity of cases regarding concerns of home-buyers filed since inception (NCLT) was 2,454. “Proper care has been taken in respect of the interests of home-buyers,” mentioned by the minister.
Later while announcing relief packages for COVID-19 pandemic, the FM increased the brink for defaulting companies under the IBC to Rs1 crore from Rs1 lakh earlier.
Before the Supreme Court ruling in August 2019, home-buyers were treated as other creditors and that they weren’t considered ‘financial creditors’ or as ‘operational creditors’, which restricted their ability to initiate insolvency proceedings under the IBC against a defaulting builder or developer. In its August 2019 order, the apex court had upheld the govt. decision to grant home-buyers the status of economic creditors.
The SC had also asked the govt to adequately man the important Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) saying, “IBC provisions should be read harmoniously with RERA. Every application pending before NCLT are selected their own merit with relevancy this apex court judgement.”
As discussed earlier, the unexamined aspects of declaring Homebuyers as Financial Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). We dive deeper into the remedies available and its nuances under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) and therefore the assets (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) together with IBC, 2016.
In the M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dr Dinesh Sharma and Anr. case, judgment was lapsed Delhi court while deciding a batch of petitions moved by several assets companies against an order gone by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The question for consideration was whether proceedings under the CPA 1986 may be commenced by homebuyers against developers after the commencement of RERA 2016.
While passing the judgment, the supreme court placed reliance on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors, (2019) – also referred to as the Flat Buyer’s case – wherein it absolutely was held that those remedies given to allottees of flats are concurrent and that they are in a very position to avail remedies under the CPA, RERA additionally trigger the IBC.
it absolutely was observed that the provisions of RERA weren’t intended to be exclusive, but to run parallel with other remedies and also the supreme court followed suit within the M3M India case.
While dismissing an oversized number writ petitions filed by the developers, the Court in Pioneer upheld the following:
CONCLUSION
From the recent judgments gone by the state supreme court, the Supreme Court and even the authorities under RERA, CPA and IBC, the judicial sentiment seems to favour the house buyer.
From a conjoint reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court within the case of Pioneer (supra) or the Court within the case of Messrs M3M (supra), the judiciary has armed an aggrieved vendee with a bunch of remedies to hunt relief against a developer and convey you a step closer to owning your dream home!
Popular blog:-
Overviews of Principles of Avoidable Preferential Transactions IBC-2016
Key Highlights of RACP Bill, 2020 and Companies (Amendment) Bill,2020
Summary of New MCA official updates under the Company Act 20
How does the Role of Resolution Professional help under IBC
Exploring Corporate Bonds in India - A Comprehensive Guide Corporate bonds in India represent a compelling investment option, offering a… Read More
Central Board of Direct Taxes Mandates E-Filing of Appendix-II Forms under Income Tax Rules, 1962 The Central Board of Direct… Read More
Payment System or mechanism under GST Regime General Rules for Payments Regular taxpayers under GST must compute tax monthly,… Read More
Rule 86B under the GST Regime Rule 86B is a provision introduced under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime… Read More
Big Relief to Taxpayers- welcome change for GST taxpayers The recent update by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN)… Read More
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Circulars Issued on 26th June 2024 Following the recommendations from the 53rd GST… Read More
