/2022 INSC 0329/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7534 OF 2021
ANAND MURTI     ...APPELLANT(S)
 
VERSUS
SONI INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED 
& ANR.    ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R 
B.R. GAVAI, J.
 
1. The   present   appeal   challenges   the   order   passed   by   the
National   Company   Law   Appellate   Tribunal,   Principal   Bench,
New   Delhi   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   NCLAT”)   dated   22 nd
November,   2021,   in   I.A.   No.1115   of   2020   in   Company   Appeal
(AT)   (Insolvency)   No.   1507   of   2019,   thereby   rejecting   the
Modification Application filed by the appellant herein.  Vide the
1

impugned order, the NCLAT observed that, in the meantime, if
settlement takes place between the parties for completion of the
housing project, the same can be filed under Section 12A of the
Insolvency  and  Bankruptcy  Code, 2016 (hereinafter  referred to
as   “the   IBC”)   before   the   Adjudicating   Authority.     The   NCLAT
also   directed   the   Interim   Resolution   Professional   (“IRP”   for
short)/Resolution   Professional   (“RP”   for   short)   to   hold   the
meeting of the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred to as
“CoC”)   within   ten   days   from   the   date   of   order   and   decide   the
future course of action about a resolution for completion of the
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to
as “CIRP”) of the respondent No.1­company (hereinafter referred
to as “the Corporate Debtor”).  
2. The   facts   in   brief   giving   rise   to   the   present   appeal   are   as
under:
3. The   appellant   herein   is   the   Suspended   Director   of   the
Corporate   Debtor.     The   respondent   No.2   herein   had   booked   a
flat   in   the   housing   project   launched   by   the   Corporate   Debtor.
2

Subsequently,   vide   a   letter   dated   31 st
  July,   2018,   the
respondent No.2 cancelled the booking and demanded refund of
the amount of Rs.32,27,591/­ from the Corporate Debtor.  
4. On   failure   of   the   appellant   in   refunding   the   amount,   the
respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC
against   the   Corporate   Debtor   for   initiation   of   CIRP   before   the
National   Company   Law   Tribunal,   New   Delhi   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “the   NCLT”).     The   NCLT   vide   order   dated   22 nd
November,   2019,   admitted   the   said   application   and   appointed
an   IRP.     The   IRP   was   directed   to   initiate   the   CIRP   of   the
Corporate Debtor as per the provisions of the IBC.  
5. The   appellant   being   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated   22 nd
November,   2019,   filed   an   appeal   before   the   NCLAT,   being
Company   Appeal   (AT)   (Insolvency)   No.1507   of   2019.     The
NCLAT vide its order dated 19 th
  December, 2019, issued notice
and   passed   an   interim   order,   thereby   directing   the   IRP   not   to
constitute CoC.  
3

6. It was submitted by the appellant herein before the NCLAT
that   he   was   ready   and   willing   to   settle   the   matter   with   the
respondent   No.2.     It   was   further   submitted   by   him   that   the
project   was   complete   almost   to   the   extent   of   70­75%   and   that
he   had   arranged   the   funds/private   financier   to   complete   the
project.  
7. In   light   of   the   submission   made   by   the   appellant   herein,
the   NCLAT   vide   order   dated   31 st
  January,   2020,   directed   the
appellant   herein   to   file   proposed   settlement   terms/plan
disclosing   all   material   particulars   with   regard   to   completion   of
the   housing   project.     Accordingly,   the   appellant   herein
submitted/filed   the   proposed   settlement   terms/plan   on   13 th
February, 2020.  The IRP had submitted his status report a day
prior,   on   12 th
  February,   2020,   stating   therein  that   most   of   the
Allottees   decided   to   have   possession   of   the   flats.     In   the
meantime, the appellant settled the matter with the respondent
No.2   herein.     Despite   the   settlement   with   the   respondent   No.2
and   appellant’s   readiness   and   willingness   to   complete   the
4

project,   the   NCLAT,   vide   order   dated   26 th
  February,   2020,
modified   the   interim   order   dated   19 th
  December,   2019   and
directed   the   IRP   to   go   ahead   with   the   constitution   of   CoC   and
carry   forward   the   CIRP.       The   said   order   dated   26 th
  February,
2020   was   passed   by   the   NCLAT   on   the   ground   that   the
settlement   arrived   at   by   the   appellant   was   only   with   the
respondent No.2 and the settlement plan did not encompass all
the Allottees.  
8. The   appellant   therefore   approached   this   Court   by   way   of
Civil Appeal No. 1928 of 2020.   This Court vide order dated 5 th
March,   2020,   permitted   the   appellant   to   approach   the   NCLAT
for modification of the order dated 26 th
 February, 2020, so as to
present   the  settlement   plan   covering   all   the  Allottees.  Vide  the
said order of this Court dated 5 th
 March, 2020, liberty was also
granted   to   the   appellant   to   approach   this   Court   again   in   case
the modification application was not allowed. 
9. Pursuant   thereto,   the   appellant   filed   the   modification
application being I.A. No.1115 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)
5

(Insolvency)  No.1507  of  2019   before   the   NCLAT.     However,   the
NCLAT   vide   the   impugned   order   dated   22 nd
  November,   2021,
has   rejected   the   said   application   for   modification   and   passed
the   order   as   aforesaid.     Being   aggrieved,   the   appellant   has
approached this Court by way of present appeal.  
10. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant,   Shri   D.N.   Goburdhun,
learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   applicants­
home­buyers   and   Shri   Abhigya   Kushwah,   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/ IRP/applicant.
11. Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel, would submit
that   in   pursuance   to   the   liberty   granted   by   this   Court,   the
appellant   had   moved   the   NCLAT   placing   on   record   the
settlement with all the stakeholders. He submitted that not only
that but in pursuance to an order passed by the NCLAT dated
29 th
  September,   2021,   a   special   meeting   of   the   stakeholders
was   convened   on   23 rd
  October,   2021,   wherein   the   IRP,   the
representatives of the Corporate Debtor, the financial creditors,
6

ten   representatives   of   home­buyers   and   the   lawyers
representing home­buyers were present.  He submitted that the
perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 23 rd
  October, 2021
would show that there was a settlement between the appellant
and   the   home­buyers   almost   on   all   counts.     It   is   submitted
that, however, the NCLAT, without taking into consideration the
minutes   of   the   said   meeting,   has   erroneously   passed   the
impugned   order,   thereby   holding   that   there   was   no   settlement
with   all   the   home­buyers   and   that   there   was   trust   deficit
amongst the home­buyers.  He submitted that not only this but
Shri Kashi Nath Shukla, the Promoter of the Corporate Debtor,
has filed an undertaking on an affidavit, thereby undertaking to
complete the project within the stipulated period.   He therefore
submits   that   it   is   in   the   interest   of   the   home­buyers   that   the
reverse   CIRP   should   be   permitted   to   be   continued   in
accordance   with   the   decision   taken   in   the   meeting   dated   23 rd
October, 2021.
7

12. Shri   D.N.   Goburdhun,   learned   Senior   Counsel   strongly
opposes   the   prayer   made   on   behalf   of   the   appellant.     He
submits that the appellant is not at all interested in completing
the   project.   He   submits   that   the   proposed   settlement
terms/plan   is   not   a   bona   fide   one   but   only   to   delay   the
completion   of   the   project.     He   submits   that   the   initiation   of
CIRP   proceedings   would   ensure   the   completion   of   the   project
and would be in the interest of the home­buyers.   He therefore
prays for dismissal of the present appeal.   
13. Shri   Abhigya   Kushwah,   learned   counsel,   would   submit
that   most   of   the   home­buyers   are   interested   in   getting   the
possession   of   the   flats.     He   therefore   submits   that   this   Court
may   pass   appropriate   orders   taking   into   consideration   the
interests of the purchasers of the flats. 
14. A   perusal   of   the   record   would   reveal   that   after   the   order
was   passed   by   this   Court   on   5 th
  March,   2020,   the   appellant
submitted   a   Revised   Proposed   Settlement   Plan   on   15 th
  March,
2021.  The IRP also submitted its Revised Status Report on 25 th
8

March, 2021 before the NCLAT.  An email dated 9 th
 July, 2021,
addressed   by   Senior   Investment   Associate,   SBI   Cap   Ventures
Ltd.­SWAMIH Investment Fund to Shri Kashi Nath Shukla, the
Promoter   of   the   Corporate   Debtor,   was   also   placed   on   record
before   the   NCLAT.     When   the   matter   was   listed   before   the
NCLAT   on   29 th
  September,   2021,   the   NCLAT   directed   the
IRP/RP,   who   was   present   before   the   NCLAT,   to   convene   a
meeting   of   CoC   within   four   weeks   to   consider   the   modified
Resolution Plan. The NCLAT further directed that home­buyers
may   nominate   not   more   than   10   persons,   who   will   participate
in   the   meeting   and   represent   them.     The   NCLAT   further
directed   that   the   promoters   and   the   authorized   persons   of
Edelweiss   Asset   Reconstruction   Company   Ltd.     (Financier)
would   also  participate   in   the  meeting   so   that  they   can   explain
the   elements   of   the   modified   Resolution   Plan   to   the   home­
buyers.     The   IRP/RP   was   directed   to   place   on   record   the
minutes   of   the   meeting   after   the   meeting   was   convened.   The
9

matter   was   thereafter   directed   to   be   listed   for   hearing   on   15 th
November, 2021.  
15. In accordance with the directions issued by the NCLAT, a
meeting was convened on 23 rd
  October, 2021.   A perusal of the
minutes   of   the   meeting   dated   23 rd
  October,   2021   would   reveal
that   the   ‘Modified   Resolution   Plan’   submitted   by   the   Promoter
was   presented   on   a   Digital   Screen.     During   the   presentation,
some   home­buyers   requested   for   further   modification   of   some
contentious   points   of   the   ‘Modified   Resolution   Plan’.       The
perusal of the minutes of the said meeting would further reveal
that most of the concerns as expressed on behalf of the home­
buyers were  taken  care  of  by   the  statement   made  on   behalf   of
the Promoters.  
16. It is further to be noted that the Status Report came to be
filed by the IRP before the NCLAT on 3 rd
  November, 2021.   The
said   Status   Report   of   the   IRP   would   reveal   that   the   Promoter,
Shri   Kashi   Nath   Shukla   had   informed   that   he   would   file   an
addendum   to   his   ‘Modified   Resolution   Plan’   to   include   the
10

points   of   home­buyers   and   to   amend   the   plan   as   per
discussions in the Meeting. 
17. However,   by   the   impugned   order   dated   22 nd
  November,
2021,   the   NCLAT   has   rejected   the   application   for   modification
and directed the CIRP to be continued.  
18. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   though   a   meeting   of   various
stakeholders   was   conducted   on   23 rd
  October,   2021   in
pursuance   to   the   directions   issued   by   the   NCLAT   dated   29 th
September, 2021 and in which meeting most of the issues stood
resolved,   the   NCLAT   has   failed   to   take   into   consideration   the
minutes of the said meeting dated 23 rd
 October, 2021.  Not only
that,  but  the   NCLAT  has  also  not  taken  into  consideration   the
Revised   Status  Report   dated   3 rd
  November,   2021  submitted   by
the IRP.  
19. An   additional   affidavit   dated   27 th
  December,   2021,   has
now been filed by the Promoter, Shri Kashi Nath Shukla before
11

this   Court.   It   will   be   relevant   to   reproduce   the   same,   which   is
as under:
“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7534 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANAND MURTI ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
Soni Infratech Pvt. Ltd 
& Anr.    ... RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
“I   K.N.   Shukla   son   of   Sh   Kailash   Nath
Shukla resident of C­35 Sector 30, Noida, UP
201301   around   68   Years   age   and   the   major
share holder of M/S K N Consultant pvt Ltd.
which is promoter of M/S Soni Infratech Pvt
Ltd, (Corporate Debtor) Having its Registered
office   at   517   A,   Narain   Manzil,   23,
Barakhmbha   Road   Connaught   place,   New
Delhi­110001,   presently   do   hereby   solemnly
affirm and state as under:
1. That I am conversant with the facts of the
case   as   such   I   am   competent   to   affirm
this affidavit. 
2. That   I   am   the   original   land   owner   and
existing promoter of the Corporate Debtor
and I say that I have purchased the land
in 2007 for the development of the project
of   the   corporate   debtor   i.e.   M/S   Soni
Infratech Pvt Ltd. 
12

3. That   I   have   given   the   land   for   the
development to “SPIRE Group” to develop
the   project   vide   development   Agreement.
And   accordingly   the   Development   and
management  of  the project transferred to
erstwhile promoters i.e. Mr. Sunil Gandhi
and Mr. Ashish Bhalla of “Spire Group”. 
4. That   SPIRE   Group   has   launched   the
project   and   collected   the   booking   from
the home buyers for  the said project and
appointed   construction   company   ERA
Group to complete the project. 
5. That   After   construction   of   30­40%   work,
ERA  Group   has   stopped   the  work   due   to
inter­se   dispute   in   the   ERA   group   which
lead   to   multiple   litigation   between   the
erstwhile promoters. 
6. That   I   have   discussed   about   the   delay   of
the   project   and   after   a   long   discussion
and   series   of  meeting,  I   managed   to   take
back   the   management   of   the   project   in
2017. 
7. That   I   have   terminated   the   Civil   contract
of ERA and appointed the new contractor
i.e.   M/s   Indsao   Infratech   and   within   a
period of 18 months we have managed to
complete   approx   70%   of   total
construction   of   the   project   by   mid   of
2018.   The   Enclosed   Construction   audit
report   by   “Qonquest”   confirms   the   stage
as approx 70% completed.
8. That   I   have   approached   Financial
Creditor   M/s   Edelweiss   to   grant   further
loan   to   complete   the   project.   But   Due   to
stay   granted   by   NCLT   in   CP   No.
N0.175/241/242/(ND)/   2018   arises   in
13

the   inter­se   disputes   between   Mr.   Sunil
Gandhi   and   Mr.   Ashish   Bhalla,   50%   of
shares   of   the   corporate   Debtor   could   not
be   pledged   in   favour   of   M/s   Edelweiss.
Thus,   the   Edelweiss   has   not   disbursed
the funds for the construction. 
9. That   in   June   2019,   I   managed   to   get
100%   share   back   after   the  Hon'ble  NCLT
decided   the   matter   in   CP   No
175/241/242/(ND)/2018. 
10. That before I could arrange more funds,
an  application  in  case  title Balram   Singh
Vs. Soni Infratech Private Limited vide its
order   dated   22.11.2019   for   the   CIRP   got
admitted. 
11. That   suspended   Director   has   preferred
an   Appeal   before   Hon'ble   NCLAT   and
Hon'ble   NCLAT   vide   it   order   dated
19.12.2019 were pleased to grant stay on
CIRP.
12. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble
NCLAT,   i   have   filed   the   settlement
terms/Resolution   Plan   with   all   details
pertaining   how   this   project   will   be
managed   to   be   completed   with   funds
planning and repayment to all Creditors.
13. That I say that I will complete the stage
wise   construction   within   6   months   to   15
months (+/­ 3 Months) in phased manner
from the date of Order.
Particulars  Tower Time   in
Months   (+/­
3 Months)
Stage­I T8­T12 Within   6­9
14

months
Stage­II T1­T4 Within 12 
months
Stage­III T5­T7 Within 15 
months
 
14. That   I   say,   I   had   committed   in   open
court   and   accordingly   arranged   Rs   10
Crore   to   start   the   project   immediately
without   any   delay   and   I   will   ensure   this
will be started within 15­30 days. 
15. That   I   have   already   agreed   in   my
Resolution   plan   that   the   Cost   of   the   Flat
will not be escalated and agreed to honor
the   BBA   signed   by   the   previous
management.
16. That as per  the  data  before the LD IRP
only   9   home   buyers   out   of   452   Home
Buyers   wanted   the   refund   and   in   my
Resolution   Plan   I   have   agreed   to   refund
the   amount   after   completion   of   the
project of Phase­1.
17. That I have stated all relevant data and
computation   in   details   in   my   Resolution
Plan   that   how   the   funds   will   be   utilized
and   how   the   construction   work   can   be
completed in time. 
18. That   I   have   stated   in   my   last   modified
resolution plan that SBI Cap Vetures Ltd
has   already   shown   interest   for   further
Loan of 100 Crore to me. 
19. That   as   per   the   direction   of   Hon'ble
NCLAT   I   have   attended   the   meeting   with
the   Representative   of   the   Home   Buyers
and   I   have   already   accepted   and   agreed
to   Incorporate   the   suggestions   and
15

objections   of   the   Home   Buyers   to   the
Resolution   Plan   and   the   same   has   been
recorded by the LD IRP in the Minutes of
the Meeting dated 23.10.2021.
20. That   I   have   also   given   my   consent   to
make   a   team   of   5   person,   2   from   buyer
side   and   2   from   management   side   and
will be monitored by Ld IRP
21. That   this   affidavit   to   the   additional
documents   in   the   present   Civil   Appeal
have been read by me and are found true
and correct to my knowledge and belief. 
22. That   the   Annexures   are   true   copies   of
their respective originals.
23. That   the   facts   stated   in   the   above
affidavit   are   true   and   correct   to   my
personal knowledge and belief.
24. That   No   part   of   the   same   is   false   and
nothing   material   have   been   concealed
there from.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I,   the   above   named   deponent   do   hereby
verify   that   the   facts   stated   in   the   above
affidavit   are   true   to   my   knowledge   and
belief which I believe to be true.   No part
of the same is false and nothing material
has been concealed there from.
Verified  at  New  Delhi,  on   this  27 th
  day  of
December, 2021.
DEPONENT”
16

20. The   Promoter,   Shri   Kashi   Nath   Shukla   has   also   filed   an
undertaking,   thereby   undertaking   to   return   the   money   with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum of seven applicants in I.A.
No.11358 of 2022 (for impleadment) in the present appeal, who
were   objecting   to   the   Settlement   Plan   submitted   by   the
appellant.   The   same   is   taken   on   record   and   marked   ‘X’   for
identification. 
21. Taking   into   consideration   the   facts   and   circumstances   of
the   present   case,   we   find   that   it   will   be   in   the   interest   of   the
home­buyers if the appellant/promoter is permitted to complete
the   housing   project.   The   salient   features   of   the   undertaking
given on affidavit are as under:
(a) That   the   project   will   be   completed   stage­wise   within   a
period   of   6   months   to   15   months   (+/­   3   months)   in   a
phased manner;
(b) That   the   promoter   has   arranged   an   amount   of   Rs.   10
crores   to   start   the   project   immediately   without   any   delay
17

and   that   he  will   ensure  that   the   project   would   be   started
within 15­30 days;
(c) That the cost of the flat will not be escalated and that the
promoter   is   agreeable   to   honour   the   BBA   signed   by   the
previous management;
(d) That SBI Cap Ventures Ltd. has already shown interest for
further loan of Rs.100 crore;
(e) That   the  promoter   has   given   his   consent   to   make  a   team
of   5   persons,   2   from   home­buyer’s   side   and   2   from   the
management   side   and   that   the   entire   process   will   be
monitored by the IRP.  
22. Taking   into   consideration   the   salient   features   of   the
undertaking given on affidavit by the Promoter, Shri Kashi Nath
Shukla   and   the   fact   that   there   are   only   seven   out   of   the   452
home­buyers, who opposed the Settlement Plan, we find that it
will   rather   be   in   the   interest   of   the   home­buyers   that   the
appellant/promoter   is   permitted   to   complete   the   project   as
18

undertaken by  him.   It is pertinent to  note that  he has agreed
that the cost of the flat will not be escalated.  He has also given
the time line within which the project would be completed.  Not
only   this,   but   he   has   also   undertaken   to   refund   the   amount
paid   by   the   seven   objectors,   if   they   so   desire.     He   has   further
agreed   that   there   shall   be   a   team   of   5   persons,   2   from   the
home­buyer’s   side   and   2   from   the   management   side   and   that
the entire process shall be monitored by the IRP.
23. We   find   that   there   is   every   possibility   that   if   the   CIRP   is
permitted,   the   cost   that   the   home­buyers   will   have   to   pay,
would   be   much   higher,   inasmuch   as   the   offer   made   by   the
resolution   applicants   could   be   after   taking   into   consideration
the   price   of   escalation,   etc.     As   against   this,   the   Promoter   has
filed   a   specific   undertaking   specifying   therein   that   the   cost   of
the   flat   would   not   be   escalated   and   that   he   would   honour   the
BBA signed by the previous management.  
24. In   that   view   of   the   matter,   we   are   inclined   to   allow   the
present appeal.  Accordingly, we pass the following order:
19

A. The   appeal   is   allowed.   The   impugned   order   dated   22 nd
November,   2021   passed   by   the   National   Company   Law
Appellate   Tribunal,   Principal   Bench,   New   Delhi   in   I.A.
No.1115 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
1507 of 2019 is quashed and set aside; 
B. The   affidavit   dated   27 th
  December,   2021   filed   by   Shri
Kashi Nath Shukla, the promoter of the respondent No.1 –
Corporate Debtor  is taken on record and treated to be an
undertaking given to this Court; 
C. The   appellant/promoter   is   permitted   to   complete   the
project   as   per   the   deliberations   that   took   place   in   the
Minutes   of   the   Meeting   dated   23 rd
  October,   2021   and   in
accordance   with   the  affidavit­cum­undertaking   dated   27 th
December, 2021 of the Promoter, Shri Kashi Nath Shukla;
D. The modification application being I.A. No.1115 of 2020 in
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1507 of 2019 before
the NCLAT accordingly stands allowed. 
20

E. From the date of this order, the IRP shall submit quarterly
reports   to   the   National   Company   Law   Appellate   Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi with regard to the progress of
the housing project;
F. The   matter   be   listed   before   the   National   Company   Law
Appellate   Tribunal,   Principal   Bench,   New   Delhi   for   such
first Status Report on 22 nd
 August, 2022. 
25. Application   for   impleadment   is   allowed.     Application   for
clarification/directions   filed   on   behalf   of   the   IRP   does   not
survive   and   is   accordingly   dismissed.     Application  for   vacation
of   stay/modification   of   order   dated   4 th
  January,   2022   is
rejected.  Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. 
…..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
         …….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 27, 2022.
21