Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Principal Bench, comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal (President) and Shri Ravindra Chaturvedi (Member Technical), dismissed I.A. No. 2696 of 2025 filed by Anamika Kataria and 8 other homebuyers in the residential project Shree Vardhman Victoria, Sector 70, Village Badshahpur, Gurugram. The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

The applicants sought to exclude Kautilya Finance BV and Kautilya Real Estate Fund (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of corporate debtor Shree Vardhman Infraheights Pvt. Ltd., claiming they were related parties under Section 5(24) of the Code. The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) was initiated against the corporate debtor on 8 January 2025 based on a petition filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited acting as Debenture Trustee for Kautilya entities.

The applicants argued that Kautilya entities exercised control over the corporate debtor through a Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) established under a Settlement Agreement dated 4 November 2019 and Amended and Restated Debenture Trust Deed dated 4 November 2019. They claimed the PMC, with 3 out of 5 members being Kautilya nominees, gave them effective control over project decisions, making them related parties under Section 5(24)(h), (l) and (m)(i) & (iv) of the Code.

Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6 opposed the application on multiple grounds: lack of locus standi (applicants being only 9 of 257 homebuyers with no subsisting default as their possession date was 9 October 2025, post-CIRP commencement), res judicata (identical issue already decided by NCLAT and Supreme Court), and absence of collusive nature of the application. The Resolution Professional also supported these submissions, noting the application was frivolous and an abuse of process.

Final Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, holding that:

1. The applicants lacked locus standi as they represented only a fraction of homebuyers and had no accrued default in their favor

2. The NCLAT judgment dated 10 February 2025 and Supreme Court order dated 21 February 2025, which had already examined the same factual matrix, were entitled to significant weight

3. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not related parties as they exercised only creditor-protective monitoring rights typical of secured debenture holders, not affirmative management control

4. No infirmity was found in the Resolution Professional's constitution of the CoC or processing of claims

The Tribunal concluded that Kautilya entities held no de jure or de facto control over the corporate debtor, and their relationship remained that of secured financial creditor-debtor with customary protective covenants. All interim reliefs were rejected with no order as to costs.

Topics: Insolvency Proceedings, Related Party Status, Committee of Creditors