The Supreme Court on Thursday said it was considering the formation of a committee to supervise the bidding process and appointment of a co-developer for completing the stalled real estate projects of Supertech Realtors, including the ambitious Supernova project in Noida.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi stressed the need to protect the interests of homebuyers and refused to endorse a private settlement between Supertech Realtors and Parmesh Construction Company.
Supertech Realtors, a subsidiary of debt-laden Supertech Ltd., is currently facing insolvency proceedings initiated on a plea by Bank of Maharashtra. The developer is constructing the Supernova project at Sector 94, Noida, involving a proposed 80-storey building with an estimated height of 300 metres, touted as the tallest in Delhi-NCR. The total project cost is pegged at ₹2,326.14 crore.
Promoter Ram Kishore Arora has challenged the August 13 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which upheld the initiation of insolvency proceedings by the Delhi bench of the NCLT.
“We need to move forward. We can appoint a committee which will oversee the bidding process for appointment of a co-developer for completion of the project. It will help in maintaining transparency,” the Bench observed, adding that Parmesh Construction or any other developer could participate in the process.
The Court restrained the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) from taking steps that could derail proceedings and directed him to keep the process in abeyance for now. He was also asked to publish a notice on his website inviting stakeholder suggestions on the committee’s formation and roadmap.
Amicus curiae advocate Rajiv Jain, who was appointed on August 29 to assist the Court, submitted his report noting adverse remarks against Parmesh Construction in the NCLAT’s August 13 order. The Bench invited all stakeholders, including homebuyers, to submit suggestions to Jain by September 8.
Appearing for the Supernova Apartment Owners Association, advocate Govind Ji alleged that neither the IRP nor Supertech Realtors had addressed homebuyers’ concerns despite repeated representations. The Court assured that these grievances would be addressed.
The Bench also questioned the opposition from Bank of Maharashtra to the appointment of a co-developer, reminding that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must also protect homebuyers’ interests.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing Arora, informed the Court that real estate firm Bhutani Group had earlier shown interest in taking over the project during insolvency proceedings.
Rejecting the idea of a private settlement, the Court said, “A committee can be a way forward and it can call for proposals from different parties.” The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 12.
