Supertech lost 16 projects. The suspended director still controls none.

One Builder, 16 Stalled Projects, and a Government Lifeline

When Ram Kishor Arora, the suspended director of Supertech Ltd., walked into the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, he was fighting for control of a real-estate empire that had collapsed under the weight of its own ambition. Supertech had 17 housing projects scattered across Noida, Greater Noida, Gurgaon, and other cities. Thousands of homebuyers had paid crores and waited years. The company had defaulted on loans from Union Bank of India. The insolvency process had already begun. Simple stakes, really — who would finish these projects, and on what terms?

The answer came on November 29, 2024. Justice Ashok Bhushan, sitting on the Principal Bench of the NCLAT, handed the keys to NBCC — the government construction giant that had already rescued the Amrapali disaster. The Tribunal rejected Arora's bid to hand five cash-surplus projects to private co-developers. It refused to grant any statutory waivers. And it delivered a clear message to homebuyers: you will not pay a rupee more than your Builder Buyers Agreement says.

The Fall of Supertech

Supertech Ltd. was once a household name in North Indian real estate. Its Eco Village-II project in Noida was supposed to be a flagship. Instead, it became the trigger for insolvency. Union Bank of India, a financial creditor, moved an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. On March 25, 2022, the NCLT, New Delhi, Bench-VI admitted the application and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

The suspended director immediately appealed. On April 12, 2022, the NCLAT restrained the Interim Resolution Professional from even constituting the Committee of Creditors. By June 10, 2022, the Tribunal modified its order: the CoC could be formed, but only for Eco Village-II. The other 16 projects would continue as ongoing concerns under IRP supervision. The Supreme Court allowed this arrangement to operate on May 11, 2023, staying only the voting on a resolution plan for Eco Village-II.

Then came the turning point. On May 31, 2024, the NCLAT directed project-wise resolution for all 16 projects. And on October 1, 2024, the Supreme Court clarified that the NCLAT was not barred from examining any proposal from NBCC. The door was open.

What NBCC Proposed

NBCC filed IA No. 6557 of 2024. Its offer was straightforward: appoint NBCC as the Project Management Consultant for all 16 projects, on the same model it had used for the Amrapali group. NBCC would take over construction, complete the stalled towers, and hand over flats to homebuyers. The company had the track record, the government backing, and the operational capacity.

The suspended director opposed this. He argued that NBCC had no locus to intervene in a CIRP that was limited to Eco Village-II. He proposed an alternative: let the suspended management hand over five cash-surplus projects to co-developers, who would complete them using their own funds. The remaining projects, he said, could go to NBCC.

The Tribunal was not impressed. The reasoning was practical: a single entity ensures uniformity, quality control, and the ability to cross-subsidize loss-making projects with cash-surplus ones. Fragmentation would create chaos.

The Doctrine That Mattered: Public Trust

Justice Bhushan did not stop at rejecting the co-developer proposal. He invoked the public trust doctrine, citing four precedents that together form a powerful framework for protecting homebuyers.

In Bikram Chatterji & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 19 SCC 161, the Supreme Court held that the public trust doctrine imposes on the State and its functionaries a mandate for affirmative action. Authorities are bound to ensure that builders act in accordance with the objectives for which land was acquired. The same principle was reinforced in Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA (2011) 6 SCC 508, where the Court declared that any public authority holding property for a public purpose acts as a trustee.

The Tribunal also relied on Natural Resources Allocation, In re (Special Reference No. 1 of 2012) (2012) 10 SCC 1, which held that every limb of the constitutional machinery must be people-oriented. And Assn. of Unified Tele Services Providers v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 110 put an embargo on transferring public properties in a manner that affects public interest.

The message was unmistakable: statutory authorities like Noida, Greater Noida, and YEIDA cannot sit on approvals. They must process building plans, occupancy certificates, and other statutory compliances with a sense of urgency. Homebuyers have waited long enough.

No RERA Waiver, No Cost Escalation

One of the most significant rulings in this judgment concerns the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. NBCC had sought exemptions from certain RERA requirements, including the mandatory deposit of 70% of project receipts in a separate account under Section 4(2)(l)(D). The Tribunal refused.

"No exemption from compliance with RERA Act 2016, building regulations, or other governing statutes can be granted to any entity undertaking construction of real-estate projects," the judgment holds. Even a Tribunal-appointed PMC must follow the law. The public trust doctrine does not give the NCLAT the power to override statutory mandates.

But the Tribunal went further. It protected homebuyers from the single biggest fear in stalled projects: cost escalation. "Homebuyers with subsisting allotments cannot be subjected to any escalation of cost beyond dues payable under the Builder Buyers Agreement," the judgment states. Only unpaid BBA dues can be recovered. No surprise bills for delayed possession. No sudden demands for extra floors.

The Tribunal also addressed the question of delay compensation. It held that such claims "cannot be accepted at this stage." The priority is completion. The compensation issue remains alive but deferred — a ticking clock that may be revisited once the flats are handed over.

Repayment Cannot Wait

Another critical direction concerns repayment to land authorities and financial institutions. The suspended director had argued that repayment should be deferred until project completion, or made contingent on surplus generation. The Tribunal rejected this outright.

"Repayment to land authorities and financial institutions cannot be deferred until project completion or made contingent on surplus," the judgment holds. It must commence simultaneously with construction, as decided by the Apex Court Committee. This ensures that the public money and land used for these projects are not held hostage to construction timelines.

The Operational Order

The Tribunal's operative order is detailed and time-bound. NBCC is allowed to undertake construction of all 16 projects as PMC. The suspended director's proposal for five projects via co-developers is dismissed. An Apex Court Committee and project-wise committees will be constituted to oversee governance. All Day Zero requirements — the preparatory work needed before construction can begin — must be completed by March 31, 2025. Contractor awards must be finalised by April 30, 2025. The timelines in Annexure D are approved.

The Tribunal also left one door open. In obiter, it noted that NBCC may approach the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution for any directions necessary for expeditious implementation that the NCLAT cannot grant. This is a safety valve: if statutory hurdles or unforeseen obstacles arise, NBCC can seek extraordinary relief from the highest court.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment provides a clear template for how stalled real-estate projects should be handled in CIRP. The key takeaways are threefold.

First, a government PSU with a proven track record can be appointed as PMC for all projects of the corporate debtor — including cash-surplus ones. The Tribunal will not allow fragmentation. Second, no statutory waivers will be granted. RERA, building regulations, and other laws apply to everyone, including Tribunal-appointed entities. Third, homebuyers are protected from cost escalation. The BBA is the ceiling, not the floor.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is equally stark. If your company enters CIRP with multiple stalled projects, you will lose control. The Tribunal will prioritise completion over your proposals. And if you think you can handpick the profitable projects for private developers while leaving the rest to the government, think again. The public trust doctrine demands uniformity and accountability.

THE PLAY: If you are a homebuyer in a stalled project under CIRP, your BBA is your shield. No one can demand more than what you agreed to pay. If you are a suspended director, your co-developer proposals will be rejected unless they cover all projects equally. If you are a statutory authority, process approvals immediately — the public trust doctrine gives you no room to delay.

The Bottom Line

Ram Kishor Arora lost control of Supertech's 16 projects. NBCC got the mandate. Homebuyers got protection. And the NCLAT made it clear: in the business of completing stalled homes, the law will not bend for anyone.