In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that insolvency proceedings involving real estate companies should generally be confined to specific projects rather than the entire corporate entity, unless there are compelling reasons to broaden the scope. The ruling aims to protect the interests of genuine homebuyers while maintaining clarity in insolvency processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The verdict came in response to appeals concerning two real estate firms, Gayatri Infra Planner Pvt. Ltd. and Antriksh Infratech Pvt. Ltd. In these cases, investors had entered into agreements that included buy-back and refund clauses, and later sought to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) under Section 7 of the IBC after those terms were not fulfilled.
The Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had dismissed the applications. The Court observed that the appellants were not bona fide homebuyers but were instead speculative investors. As such, they could not be treated as financial creditors eligible to initiate insolvency proceedings.
To help distinguish genuine buyers from speculative ones, the Court outlined several indicators. These include agreements that prioritize refunds or buy-back options over possession, demands for high-interest returns instead of property delivery, ownership of multiple units by the same person, special contract terms not typically seen in standard agreements under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), and promises of unreasonably high returns within short periods.
By stressing a project-specific approach, the Court seeks to avoid a situation where solvent and ongoing real estate developments are unnecessarily disrupted by insolvency claims arising from unrelated or isolated grievances. This judgment provides clearer direction for courts and tribunals when handling real estate insolvency cases and reinforces the legislative intent behind recent amendments to the IBC.
The decision is seen as a step toward safeguarding legitimate homebuyers while discouraging speculative activity in the real estate sector through misuse of insolvency mechanisms.