SC Upheld Collective Insolvency Petition of Home Buyers Against Multiple Developers
Judgment dated 2.2.2026 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13628 of 2025 of Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. Col. Gautam Mullick and others with connected civil appeal.
On 5.8.2006, the UPSIDA had allotted the leased land to Bhasin Ltd alone. On 14.12.2009, Bhasin Ltd entered into agreement with Grand Ltd for marketing rights for sale of units in the project. Two companies had common directors including Satinder Singh Bhasin for some length of time. The demand notices were issued Bhasin Ltd to the allottees of Grand Ltd. Payment receipts and communications also manifested the same.
On 4.12.2023, on section 7 IBC joint petition of more than 100 individuals, the NCLT initiated CIRP against two separate companies – corporate debtors Grand Towers and Bhasin Infrastructure.
SC Upheld Maintainability of Joint Section 7 IBC Petition of Home Buyers against two companies – corporate debtors.
Single Section 7 IBC Petition against two separate legal entities – Corporate Debtors
Rule 28 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Endorsement and Scrutiny of Petition or appeal or document
Registration of the pleadings or document is to take place only after removal of the defects therein. Rule 28(3) states that a party may be allowed not only to rectify but also amend such returned appeal or petition or application or document. Rule 28(4) shows that it is only after the refiling, upon curing of the defects, that the Registrar would register the pleading or document. Rule 29 of the NCLT Rules titled as “Registration of Proceedings admitted” and states that on admission of an appeal or petition or caveat or application the same shall be numbered and registered in the appropriate register maintained in that behalf and the number shall be given.
Therefore, the alteration in the memorandum of parties in the company petition after it was filed on 07.07.2021, but returned for curing the defects therein, did not amount to an abuse of process as is being contended by the appellants. It was only after ‘registration’ of the company petition takes place under Rule 28(4) of the NCLT Rules that it would have been impermissible for the petitioning allottees to make any changes therein without the leave of the NCLT. As the changes in question were made by them prior to that event, no adverse inference can be drawn against them to non-suit them on that ground.
