Supreme Court assures homebuyers of Supertech's Twin Towers that their interests will be protected

(File image of the twin towers)

The Supreme Court on April 4 assured homebuyers invested in the Noida Twin towers project by Supertech Ltd that their interests will be protected, after the company went into insolvency on April 25 and directed them to file their claims with the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) by April 15.

It also sought a response from the IRP on the disbursal of their claims.

Meanwhile, Supertech Ltd informed the top court that it will be filing an appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) declaring it bankrupt on a plea filed by the Union Bank of India, for non-payment of around Rs 432 crore worth of dues.

Gaurav Agarwal, amicus curiae in the Supertech matter, filed a note that the NCLT, New Delhi, has passed an order on March 25, 2022, by which corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) has been initiated against Supertech Ltd, a moratorium, under Section 14 of IB Code, 2016 declared, and also IRP, Hitesh Goel, has been appointed.

Agarwal asked the bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant to consider whether payments that are to be made to the homebuyers of the twin towers should form part of the resolution process or whether the payments should be kept out of the CIRP process.

The bench noted the submissions of senior advocate S Ganesh appearing for the ex-management of Supertech and amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwal that there was a total of 711 home buyers of twin towers, out of which the company had settled the claim of 652 home buyers. It noted that 59 home buyers still need to be refunded and the outstanding amount would be around Rs 14.96 crore, as per the amicus curiae note.

Ganesh informed the apex court had fixed a deadline of March 31 for making total refunds but on March 25, the company was declared insolvent and claims of 59 homebuyers could not be settled as there was a delay in the completion of proper documentation work.

The bench also noted the submission of counsel for Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) that a tab has been created in the portal for filing the claims by the home buyers of the twin towers. It issued notice to IRP and directed that all the claims of homebuyers who filed their claims till April 15 shall be collated along with the interest due, computed, and that the report be filed in the court by April 30.

The bench said that IRP shall also clarify in its report that the funds available in the bank account of the company or which can be reasonably made available in the near future for running operations of the company, would be enough to settle the claims.

It said that the amount of claims of homebuyers shall be segregated from other claims of financial creditors and posted the matter for further hearing on May 6.

"The Supreme Court can always exercise its inherent powers in order to meet the ends of justice. This exercise of power will certainly bring relief to numerous consumers . Also, I would like to reiterate that filing of claims by these buyers is imperative and protects their interests," said Aditya Parolia, advocate, PSP Legal.

On February 28, the NOIDA authority had informed the top court that the work for the demolition of Supertech's twin 40-storey towers in its Emerald Court project, which have been held illegal for a violation of norms, has commenced and will be razed completely by May 22.

The top court had asked all the stakeholders including NOIDA and Supertech Ltd to strictly abide by the timeline given in the status report and had listed the matter for further hearing on May 17

The apex court had on August 31, 2021, directed that the entire amount paid for by homebuyers be refunded with 12 percent interest from the time of the booking and the Residents Welfare Association be paid Rs 2 crore for the harassment caused due to the construction of the twin towers.

The court on August 31 had also ordered the demolition of the structures located in Sector 93A within three months. The construction violated the minimum distance requirement and had been built illegally without taking the consent of the individual flat owners as required under the UP Apartment Act, the top court had said.