# Vibha Narula Gupta & Ors., Vivek Khanna & Ors. vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, Resolution Professional, Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.

> NCLT judgment dated 2026-10-05. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLT-01169. Eleven allottees/homebuyers (Applicants) filed an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 5 Oct 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLT-01169
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-new-delhi/spaze-towers-pvt-ltd-sso4r

## Summary

### Background

Eleven allottees/homebuyers (Applicants) filed an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016, seeking directions to the Resolution Professional (RP) to hand over possession of their units in the 'Privvy The Address' project, execute Conveyance Deeds, and adjust/waive various disputed demands. These demands included increases in super area, EDC/IDC, external electrification charges, preferential location charges, club development charges, labour cess, and interest. The Applicants had previously approached the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) regarding these disputes, which dismissed their complaints. An appeal to the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT) was pending when CIRP commenced against the Corporate Debtor, Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.

…

## Facts

The Applicants are 11 allottees/homebuyers in the residential project 'Privvy The Address' developed by Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.

Builder Buyer Agreements (BBAs) stipulated possession within 36/42 months, but possession was not handed over within this period.

The Corporate Debtor offered possession in November 2017 without an Occupation Certificate, which was received on 20.07.2018.

The Corporate Debtor raised additional demands for increased super area, EDC/IDC, external electrification charges, preferential location charges, club development charges, labour cess, and interest.

The Applicants disputed these demands, alleging they were illegal and unjust.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the NCLT, under Section 60(5) of the IBC, has jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual …

**Ratio:** The NCLT's residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC is limited to disputes

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLT's role is to deal with questions of law or fact arising out of or in relation to

…

**Interpretation:** Section 60(5) of the IBC is not an unrestricted jurisdiction. It requires a

…

**Application:** The NCLT cannot re-adjudicate issues like super area increase, EDC/IDC,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Mahendra Khandelwa…; Atul Chaturvedi…
- **Appellants:** VIBHA NARULA…; Vivek Khanna &…
- **Respondents:** Spaze Towers Pvt.…; Narendra Kumar…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Committee of…
- **Advocates:** Arpit Dw…; Anikesh B…; +6 more

## Timeline

- **November 2017 — Initial Possess…**: Corporate Debtor offered possession of units…
- **2018-04-01 — HRERA Complain…**: Applicants, through Privvy 93 Owners Association, approached HRERA challenging additional…

## 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-new-delhi/spaze-towers-pvt-ltd-sso4r