Case Details

Case Name: Ranjeet Ramakrishna Yadav & In the Matter of: M/s. Sulekha Kalra vs JNC Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Court/Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Court VI, New Delhi

Case Number: IA-6037/2025 in Company Petition No. (IB)–272/PB/2019

Order Date: 21.05.2026

Period of Dispute: Allotment dated 28.01.2016, CIRP commencement 30.05.2019, demand letter 16.10.2025

Parties Involved

Applicant/Financial Creditor: Sulekha Kalra (successor to late husband Bharat Bhushan Kalra)

Corporate Debtor/Respondent: JNC Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent No.1: Prabhjeet Singh Soni (Resolution Professional of JNC Constructions)

Respondent No.2: Gautam Builder in Consortium with Rapid Contracts Pvt. Ltd. (Successful Resolution Applicant)

Other Appearing Parties: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), UPAVP

Issues / Allegations / Violations

The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 with three prayers:

1. Quash and set aside demand letter dated 16.10.2025 issued by Respondent No.2/SRA demanding ₹32,43,101/- plus IFMS charges of ₹45,500/- for Flat No. D-1102, Tower D, JNC Greenwoods, Vasundhara Sector-3, Ghaziabad

2. Direct Respondent No.1 to handover possession and execute/register Sale Deed for the flat

3. Any other relief deemed fit

The Applicant alleged that the demand was illegal and arbitrary as her late husband had already paid the entire sale consideration of ₹64,87,754/- with excess payment of ₹31,853/- prior to CIRP commencement. The Applicant contended that Respondent No.2/SRA had no vested right to raise demands until the resolution plan is approved.

Findings & Observations

The Tribunal observed that:

  • The flat was originally allotted to late Mr. Bharat Bhushan Kalra vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2016
  • The applicant's husband had paid ₹65,19,607/- against total consideration of ₹64,87,754/-, resulting in excess payment of ₹31,853/-
  • The claim was filed in CIRP on 31.10.2019/01.11.2019 and was admitted by the Resolution Professional (Serial No.418)
  • The Applicant was duly substituted as claimant after her husband's death on 29.08.2022
  • The Resolution Plan is pending consideration before NCLT in IA(IBC)(Plan)/42/ND/2024 pursuant to Supreme Court remand order dated 12.02.2024

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

The Respondent No.2/SRA submitted that the impugned demand letter dated 16.10.2025 had already been withdrawn vide email dated 16.02.2026, making the prayer for quashing infructuous.

Regarding possession and sale deed execution, the Tribunal noted that:

  • The Resolution Plan is still pending approval before the Adjudicating Authority
  • Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate from competent authority are still awaited
  • Only provisional access for fitment/interior work was offered via email dated 29.07.2024, not final lawful possession
  • Final possession and registration can only be undertaken after obtaining necessary certificates

Final Ruling & Enforcement

The Tribunal disposed of the application with the following findings:

1. The prayer for quashing the demand letter became infructuous as it was already withdrawn

2. The reliefs regarding possession and sale deed execution are subject to statutory requirements and approvals

3. The Adjudicating Authority declined to adjudicate on these reliefs as they require compliance with applicable legal framework

4. The matter stands disposed of without any further directions

The Resolution Plan continues to await final approval by NCLT following the Supreme Court's remand order.