{"id":387,"date":"2025-10-16T06:55:33","date_gmt":"2025-10-16T06:55:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mudralegal.com\/blog\/?p=387"},"modified":"2025-10-16T09:01:38","modified_gmt":"2025-10-16T09:01:38","slug":"vishal-chelani-and-others-vs-debashis-nanda-civil-appeal-no-3806-of-2023-decided-on-06-10-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mudralegal.com\/blog\/vishal-chelani-and-others-vs-debashis-nanda-civil-appeal-no-3806-of-2023-decided-on-06-10-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"VISHAL CHELANI AND OTHERS Vs. DEBASHIS NANDA, Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023, Decided on: 06-10-2023"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

<\/span><\/p>\n

Issues Raised \u2013 the problems or questions brought before the court.<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/h3>\n

The key problem was that the appellants (home buyers who invested in the real estate project of Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.) felt they were being treated unfairly during the company’s insolvency process. They had previously approached the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)<\/b> and secured orders that entitled them to a refund of their deposited money plus interest due to project delays.<\/span><\/h3>\n

However, the Resolution Plan created by the company’s administrator (Resolution Professional or R.P.) proposed two classes of home buyers:<\/span><\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. Those who did not<\/strong> approach RERA.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Those who did<\/strong> approach RERA and received court orders (decree holders).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The plan offered the first group 50% better terms<\/strong> than the second group. The appellants challenged this difference, arguing that all home buyers should be treated the same during the insolvency process.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Issues Framed \u2013 the main questions the court decided to examine.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. Whether home buyers who obtained a refund order or decree from RERA cease to be considered part of the general class of “home buyers” (financial creditors) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Whether the distinction made in the Resolution Plan between home buyers who approached RERA and those who did not is legally sound.<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Whether the provisions of the RERA Act relating to refunds (Section 18) take precedence over the classification rules under the IBC.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Observations on Issues Framed \u2013 what the court noticed or said on each issue.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n