Tribunal holds petition maintainable despite corporate debtor's challenge on allottee threshold; appoints new Interim Resolution Professional and declares moratorium under IBC, 2016.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, on 9th October 2026, admitted a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) petition filed by Evanie Eco Nest Home Buyers Association against Evanie Infrastructure Private Limited, the developer of the "Evanie Eco Nest" real estate project. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Member Judicial) and Ms. Rekha Kantilal Shah (Member Technical).
The homebuyers association initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, alleging that despite substantial advances paid for flats and bungalows in the project, the developer failed to commence construction or deliver possession, constituting a default. The petition was filed by 59 allottees claiming to meet the statutory threshold of at least 100 allottees or 10% of the total allottees under the same real estate project, whichever is less.
Evanie Infrastructure opposed the petition, contending that the threshold was not met as they produced a list of 966 allottees, making 59 petitioners insufficient to initiate CIRP. The respondent further argued that many purported allotments were mere preliminary application forms without specific flat details and that the petition was not maintainable. The corporate debtor also challenged the locus standi of the petitioners and classified the dispute as a consumer grievance outside IBC jurisdiction.
The Tribunal, however, relied on the principles enshrined under the IBC, 2016, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which clarified the burden of proof lies on the corporate debtor for facts within its exclusive knowledge, such as the actual number of valid allotments. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for calculating the threshold is the date of filing the petition. Post-filing additions or inflated lists submitted later cannot be considered to defeat maintainability.
Drawing on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2021), the Tribunal held that the threshold is based on actual bookings/allotments and not speculative or incomplete applications. It found that the petitioner's assertion of 540 units met the threshold and the corporate debtor failed to produce reliable evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal dismissed all intervention applications by additional homebuyers and the corporate debtor's application seeking dismissal on threshold grounds.
Further, due to the unavailability of the originally proposed Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), Ms. Sonu Jain, following disciplinary proceedings against her, the Tribunal approved the substitution of Mr. Sanjit Kumar Nayak as IRP. The Tribunal declared the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, prohibiting initiation or continuation of suits, transfer or disposal of assets, and enforcement of security interests against the corporate debtor during the CIRP.
The Tribunal directed the new IRP to take immediate charge, make public announcements, and oversee the resolution process in compliance with the IBC timelines. The corporate debtor's officers were instructed to cooperate fully with the IRP.
This order reinforces the principle that homebuyers can collectively trigger insolvency proceedings against errant developers under the IBC, provided the statutory threshold is met at the time of filing. It also underscores the strict scrutiny applied to allottee counts and the burden on developers to prove or disprove such figures.
Bottom Line:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 7 petition by homebuyers/allottees - Threshold of not less than 100 allottees or 10% of total allottees under same real estate project, whichever is less, has to be examined as on date of filing - Corporate Debtor cannot defeat maintainability by belatedly producing inflated and unreliable list of allottees based on incomplete application forms and post-filing additions - Burden to prove facts especially within knowledge, namely actual number of allottees/bookings, lies on Corporate Debtor - Petition held maintainable and CIRP admitted.
Statutory provision(s):
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Sections 7, 14; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Sections 105, 109
