Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 25 September 2026

Case Overview

This interim application (I.A. No. 6766 of 2026) was filed by the appellant, Rivierkrishna Developers LLP, in an ongoing appeal (CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1718 of 2026). The appeal challenges the impugned order dated 05 August 2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), which cancelled an e-auction sale held on 16 November 2023 and the subsequent sale certificate dated 05 April 2024 issued to the appellant.

The dispute originates from a collaboration agreement dated 02 October 2010 between landowners (Respondent Nos. 2 to 8) and Krish Landscapers Private Limited (later M/s Iceberg Developers Private Limited) for developing a group housing colony. A subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) indicated Iceberg's agreement to purchase the lands. A dispute arose, leading to Civil Suit No. 2119 of 2016 filed by Iceberg in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, seeking a permanent injunction.

Insolvency was triggered against Iceberg Developers Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor) when an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was admitted on 20 April 2022. The process culminated in liquidation. The liquidator conducted an e-auction on 20 October 2023 to sell the assets/actionable claims of the Corporate Debtor. Rivierkrishna emerged as the highest bidder, specifically for Block 4 property, with a bid amount of ₹36 crores. A letter of intent was issued, and a sale certificate was finally issued to the appellant on 05 April 2024.

The NCLT, in its impugned order, cancelled the auction and sale certificate. Its reasoning was threefold: (1) The collaboration agreement only granted development rights to the Corporate Debtor, while ownership remained with the landowners; (2) The agreement to sell did not confer valid title or vest ownership in the appellant; and (3) The collaboration rights sold by the liquidator were not available as they were allegedly cancelled by an MOU dated 02 October 2020, and the matter was sub-judice before the civil court. The NCLT also found a discrepancy, noting the sale certificate transferred ownership of 75% of the land to the auction purchaser, which was contrary to the public e-auction sale notice that only offered development rights and actionable claims. Consequently, the NCLT held the land was not an asset of the Corporate Debtor and the liquidator had no authority to auction it.

The appellant, having paid a total consideration of ₹365,568,646, contends the NCLT order was passed illegally and without providing for restitution of the deposited amount. In its appeal, it has alternatively prayed for restitution of this sum with appropriate interest, stamp duty, and registration charges.

In the present interim application, the appellant sought to bring additional documents on record and, most crucially, a direction for the parties to maintain status quo regarding the right, title, and interest in the subject property until the next hearing. The appellant expressed apprehension that the landowners, taking advantage of the NCLT order, were attempting to "non-suit" them and sell the property, potentially causing irreparable loss.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT dismissed the plea for an interim status quo order. The tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to issue interim directions, especially noting that a stay order granted by the Civil Court, Gurugram, on 11 November 2020 in Civil Suit No. 2119 of 2016 was already operative. That order restrains the landowners from alienating the suit property or changing its nature.

The tribunal granted the respondents 10 days to file their objections to this application (IA 6766/2026) and the earlier stay application (IA 6518/2026). The appellant may file a rejoinder within three days thereafter. The matter, along with the main appeal and all connected applications, is listed for next hearing on 14 October 2026. The tribunal clarified that any further action taken by the parties would be subject to the orders passed by the NCLAT.

Topics: Insolvency Litigation, Asset Auction Dispute, Real Estate Rights