Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. Ram Kishor Arora & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2626 of 2025, decided by the Supreme Court of India, Judgment Date: February 05, 2026.
Facts in Brief
M/s. Supertech Limited, a real estate company, failed to complete 16 housing projects launched between 2010 and 2012, leading to the initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC by Union Bank of India. In an appeal before the NCLAT, the tribunal directed the engagement of NBCC India Ltd. as a project management consultant to complete the pending units for approximately 51,000 homebuyers. The management of the corporate debtor challenged this direction, arguing that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by impleading a third party without the consent of the original proponents and creditors. (Paras 3–9)
Issues for Determination
The primary issues were whether the NCLAT had the jurisdiction under the IBC to entrust project completion to a third-party entity like NBCC without the consent of the project proponent, and whether the protection of homebuyers’ interests justifies the subordination of other creditor claims. (Paras 9–15)
Submissions of the Appellant
The appellants argued that the NCLAT exceeded its jurisdiction by impleading NBCC, a third-party entity, for project completion. They contended that the statutory scheme of the IBC does not empower the tribunal to entrust projects to third parties without the consent of the original proponents and creditors. Furthermore, they asserted that if given more time, the management could complete the remaining 20,000 units itself, having already handed over 25,000 units. (Paras 9–12)
Submissions of the Respondents
The homebuyers supported the NCLAT’s decision, emphasizing that they had been waiting for possession for over two decades. The consortium of banks, while initially supporting the NBCC proposal, noted a one-time settlement offer from the management which they found potentially more beneficial. Statutory authorities sought the settlement of their dues or the return of land where leases had been cancelled. (Paras 10–13)
Findings of the Court
The Court held that protecting the interests of homebuyers to ensure they secure shelter is the primary consideration, rendering the claims of secured creditors and land authorities secondary for the time being. It found that bringing NBCC on record was neither unfair nor contrary to any express provision of the IBC, especially given the misutilisation of funds by the developer. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to protect the equitable and transparent mechanism established by the NCLAT for completing the 16 pending projects. (Paras 15–17)
Final Order
The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order of the NCLAT was upheld with certain modifications. No costs were expressly imposed.