Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Division Bench (Court-I) Chennai

Order Date: 30 June 2026

Case Overview

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chennai bench comprising Hon'ble Shri. Sanjiv Jain (Member Judicial) and Hon'ble Shri. Venkataraman Subramaniam (Member Technical) heard multiple interconnected applications in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Amar Prakaash Developers Private Limited (CP(IB)/73(CHE)2022). The proceedings involved various intervention applications, avoidance applications, and the final approval of the resolution plan.

The primary dispute centered around a land transaction involving 1.67 acres at Pazhanthandaam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The Resolution Professional (RP) had filed IA(IBC)/1646(CHE)/2024 under Sections 49 and 45 of the IBC, alleging an undervalued transaction where the corporate debtor acquired land from EAP Infrastructure India Private Limited at Rs 2.61 crores but sold it to Manish Mardia for only Rs 98.46 lakhs, claiming a difference of Rs 1.62 crores. Conversely, Manish Mardia filed IA(IBC)/1369(CHE)/2025 seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell and transfer of the land title upon payment of the balance consideration of Rs 18.41 lakhs.

Other applications included claims by homebuyers, including Latha Devi Gani who sought recognition of her flat ownership and inclusion of TNRERA-awarded compensation of Rs 11.69 lakhs in the resolution plan, applications regarding the Resolution Professional's fees, and various intervention applications by financial creditors including State Bank of India.

The tribunal examined the transaction history where EAP Infrastructure had purchased the land in 2015, and in 2020, the corporate debtor acquired it through book entries adjusting outstanding dues of Rs 2.61 crores. The corporate debtor then entered into an agreement to sell with Manish Mardia on 16 March 2020 for Rs 98.46 lakhs, receiving Rs 54.95 lakhs as advance payment.

Final Outcome

The tribunal approved the resolution plan submitted by resolution applicant Aadarsh Surana with specific directions. All avoidance applications were dismissed, including the RP's application claiming Rs 1.62 crore undervaluation and Manish Mardia's application seeking specific performance.

The tribunal recognized Latha Devi Gani's ownership of Flat No. H-111 based on her registered sale deed and TNRERA orders but rejected her claim for inclusion of Rs 11.69 lakhs compensation in the resolution plan as it was never submitted to the RP during claims submission. The Resolution Professional's incentive fee was secured through the resolution applicant's undertaking to pay it as part of CIRP costs. State Bank of India was permitted to initiate separate recovery proceedings for mortgaged flats. All other intervention applications were either dismissed or disposed of with observations.

The tribunal held that the land transaction was made in the ordinary course of business during the corporate debtor's financial crisis and could not be considered undervalued since the guideline value at the time was approximately Rs 98.46 lakhs, matching the sale consideration. The applications were filed beyond the two-year look-back period prescribed under Sections 45 and 46 of the IBC.

Topics: Insolvency Resolution, Avoidance Transactions, Real Estate Disputes