# In the matter of Spaze Towers Private Limited I.A. 3795,3796 & 3799-ND-2022 in IB-284(PB)-2021

> NCLT judgment dated 2022-08-26. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLT-01251. The case involves multiple interlocutory applications (I.A. 3795/ND/2022, I.A. 3796/ND/2022,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 26 Aug 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLT-01251
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/spaze-towers-private-limited-ia-37953796-3799-nd-2022-in-ib-284pb-2021-0dc2a0a1

## Summary

### Background

The case involves multiple interlocutory applications (I.A. 3795/ND/2022, I.A. 3796/ND/2022, I.A. 3799/ND/2022, I.A. 1036/PB/2022, IA/4242/PB/2021, IA/3870/ND/2022, IA/4085/ND/2022, New IA/3976/ND/2022) filed in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. These applications primarily seek intervention and impleadment in the main petition, IB/284(PB)/2021, related to the corporate insolvency resolution process of Spaze Towers Private Limited. The applicants, including financial creditors and unit allottees, claim rights based on purchased units in the 'Spaze Arrow' project and alleged breaches of investment return schemes and collaboration agreements. The corporate debtor opposes these interventions,

…

## Facts

The applicants, including Surinder Pal Singh, Prakash Agarwal, Amit Kumar Manglam, and Ishaan Singh, filed applications seeking intervention and impleadment in the main insolvency petition (IB/284(PB)/2021) against Spaze Towers Private Limited. These applicants claimed to be financial creditors or unit allottees in the 'Spaze Arrow' project developed by Spaze Towers. They argued that Spaze Towers had defaulted on investment return schemes and breached collaboration agreements. The corporate debtor, Spaze Towers, opposed the intervention, asserting that these applicants lacked the locus standi to intervene at the pre-admission stage of a Section 7 application under the IBC. The corporate debtor relied on precedents stating that only the financial creditor and the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether third parties, such as unit allottees or other financial creditors, can intervene or be …

**Ratio:** At the pre-admission stage of a Section 7 application under the IBC, only the financial

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority is primarily required to satisfy itself regarding the

…

**Interpretation:** Section 7 of the IBC is interpreted to limit the scope of parties involved at

…

**Application:** In this case, the applicants, being unit allottees and other financial

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** DHARMINDER…; BINOD KUMAR…
- **Appellants:** Vivek K…
- **Respondents:** Spaze Towers…; Spaze Towers Pvt.…

## Timeline

- **2021-11-22 — Filing of Section 7…**: Ishan Singh filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code, 2016, against Spaze Towers…
- **2019-09-11 — HRERA Gurugram Site…**: HRERA Gurugram site inspection report showed that the building/project was only 30-35%…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/spaze-towers-private-limited-ia-37953796-3799-nd-2022-in-ib-284pb-2021-0dc2a0a1