Issues Raised – the problems or questions brought before the court.
1. The original bankruptcy law (IBC) did not officially recognize home buyers as important creditors, ignoring their substantial investments in JIL’s property projects.
2. The bankruptcy resolution process (CIRP) for JIL had expired, leading toward liquidation (selling off the company), which home buyers feared would leave them without homes or money.
3. The home buyers asked the Court to protect their rights, arguing the current law was unconstitutional for disregarding stakeholders like them.
4. The promoter company, Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), failed to deposit the mandated funds (Rs. 2,000 crores) and sought permission to participate in the bidding process to regain control of JIL.
5. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) sought permission to initiate separate bankruptcy proceedings against JAL.
Issues Framed – the main questions the court decided to examine.
1. Given that the legal deadline for the bankruptcy process expired before the law changed to protect home buyers, should the Supreme Court use its special power to restart the entire process?
2. Are JIL, JAL, and their owners eligible to participate in submitting a plan for the company’s resolution, considering the new law (Section 29A) barring failed promoters?
3. Should the Court immediately return the money (Rs. 750 crores) deposited by JAL to the home buyers who are seeking refunds?
Observations on Issues Framed – what the court noticed or said on each issue, in simple words.
1. Restarting the Process: The Court agreed that the resolution period ended (May 2018) just before the law was amended (June 2018) to grant home buyers crucial voting rights as “financial creditors”. To ensure justice and allow the home buyers to use their new rights, the Court must use its special constitutional power (Article 142) to revive the 180-day resolution process. This ensures that the process follows the new, improved law (IBC) rather than the Court creating a confusing new mechanism.
2. Promoter Eligibility: The Court found that JAL/JIL and their promoters are strictly not eligible to participate in the process because they are barred by Section 29A of the IBC. This rule exists to prevent the same people who caused the financial failure (due to issues like defaulting on loans or fraudulent transactions) from taking the company back.
3. Deposited Money: The Court refused to disburse the Rs. 750 crores immediately to those seeking refunds. Doing so would be legally improper during the bankruptcy process and would unfairly hurt the interests of other lenders (secured creditors) and the 92% of home buyers who still want possession of their apartments.
4. JAL’s Status: The Court noted that JAL and JIL are in clear financial distress, and agreed with the RBI that allowing a separate bankruptcy case against JAL is necessary for a viable overall resolution.
Sections Interpreted – the sections of law and Act names discussed by the court.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India (Supreme Court’s power to ensure complete justice).
• Sections 7, 12, 21, 29A, and 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) (Covering initiation, time limits, creditor committee formation, ineligibility of promoters, and liquidation).
• Section 2 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act, 2016) (Used to define home buyer terms).
• Section 35 AA and 35 AB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Empowering RBI to initiate bank insolvency proceedings).
Law Settled – the legal rule or principle made clear by the court.
• Financial Creditor Status: The law is settled that money raised from home buyers in real estate projects is considered “financial debt,” making home buyers statutory financial creditors with voting rights in the Committee of Creditors.
• Scope of Article 142: The Supreme Court can use its special power to revive a legally expired bankruptcy resolution process when a major legislative change affecting key stakeholders (like home buyers) occurred during the case, thereby ensuring the new law can be properly implemented.
• Strict Ineligibility: The bar under Section 29A preventing failed promoters or associated parties from reacquiring control of the bankrupt company must be strictly enforced, even if the alternative is liquidation.
Judgment / Directions (Conclusion) – the final order or directions of the court.
1. Bankruptcy Process Restarted: The 180-day bankruptcy resolution process (CIRP) for JIL must begin again starting from the date of this order.
2. New Committee: A new Committee of Creditors (CoC) must be immediately set up to include home buyers as financial creditors, giving them a vote.
3. Promoters Barred: JIL, JAL, and their original owners are not allowed to participate in the resolution process or submit any bids.
4. Fresh Bids Allowed: The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is allowed to seek new resolution bids from other eligible companies.
5. JAL Bankruptcy: The RBI is permitted to instruct banks to start separate bankruptcy proceedings against the parent company, JAL.
6. Money Held: The Rs. 750 crores deposited by JAL (plus interest) must be transferred to the NCLT (the bankruptcy court) and held there until the NCLT issues final orders on its use.