The appellants challenged a decision by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, which ruled that as beneficiaries of a decree by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA), the order of the Resolution Professional (R.P.) proposing that they be treated differently from other home buyers allottees, does not call for interference. The appellants are home buyers who opted for allotment in a real estate project of the respondent company. Aggrieved by the delay in the completion of the project, the appellants approached the UPRERA, which upheld their entitlement to refund amounts deposited by them, together with interest. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings were initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). A
…The appellants are home buyers who had invested in a real estate project developed by the respondent company, Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Due to delays in the project's completion, the appellants approached the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) seeking a refund of their deposited amounts with interest. UPRERA ruled in favor of the appellants, ordering the refund. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings were initiated against the respondent company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The resolution plan proposed a distinction between home buyers who had approached RERA and those who had not, offering different terms. The appellants challenged this distinction, arguing that all home buyers should be treated equally as financial
…Sign in to view the parties.
Appellants, as home…
UPRERA ruled in favor of the appellants,…
The appellants challenged a decision by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, which ruled that as beneficiaries of a decree by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA), the order of the Resolution Professional (R.P.) proposing that they be treated differently from other home buyers allottees, does not call for interference. The appellants are home buyers who opted for allotment in a real estate project of the respondent company. Aggrieved by the delay in the completion of the project, the appellants approached the UPRERA, which upheld their entitlement to refund amounts deposited by them, together with interest. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings were initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). A
…The appellants are home buyers who had invested in a real estate project developed by the respondent company, Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Due to delays in the project's completion, the appellants approached the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) seeking a refund of their deposited amounts with interest. UPRERA ruled in favor of the appellants, ordering the refund. Subsequently, insolvency proceedings were initiated against the respondent company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The resolution plan proposed a distinction between home buyers who had approached RERA and those who had not, offering different terms. The appellants challenged this distinction, arguing that all home buyers should be treated equally as financial
…Appellants, as home…
UPRERA ruled in favor of the appellants,…