Soni Infratech Contempt Order Extends Completion Deadline

Case Name: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1250 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 7534 of 2021
Parties: Petitioners – Gaurav Munjal and others (seven homebuyers representing approx. 180 homebuyers); Respondents – Kashi Nath Shukla and another (promoter of Soni Infratech Private Ltd)
Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India (Inherent Jurisdiction)
Order/Diary Numbers: Miscellaneous Application No. 567 of 2025, Civil Appeal Diary No. 137 of 2024, Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 22731 of 2025
Order Date: 22 May 2026 (with earlier referenced orders dated 27‑04‑2022, 22‑11‑2021, 20‑08‑2024)
Period of Dispute: Project completion timeline of 6‑15 months (±3 months) from 27‑12‑2021 undertaking; alleged non‑compliance extending into 2026.

Petitioners: Gaurav Munjal et al. (seven homebuyers acting on behalf of ~180 homebuyers)
Respondents: Kashi Nath Shukla (promoter of Soni Infratech Private Ltd), another unnamed respondent
Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP): Unnamed, appointed to monitor the project
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): Principal Bench, New Delhi
Potential Lender: SBI Cap Ventures Ltd. (expressed interest for a Rs 100 crore loan)

Failure to complete the housing project within the phased timeline stipulated in the affidavit dated 27‑12‑2021.
Non‑availability of the promised Rs 10 crore funding to restart construction within 15‑30 days.
Alleged escalation of flat costs contrary to the undertaking that costs would not be increased.
Non‑honour of the Builder‑Buyer Agreements (BBA) executed by the previous management.
Failure to constitute the agreed monitoring team of five persons (2 homebuyer representatives, 2 management representatives, IRP oversight).
Failure to provide letters of authority required to secure financial assistance, as alleged by the respondents.
Alleged intention to mortgage allotted flats, potentially jeopardising homebuyers’ interests.
Repeated extensions of the proposed completion dates and lack of transparency on fund infusion and utilization.

The Court observed a prima facie case of contempt by Respondent No. 1 (Kashi Nath Shukla) for non‑compliance with the order dated 27‑04‑2022.
Only seven of the 452 homebuyers opposed the settlement plan; the majority were in favour, indicating limited opposition.
The Court emphasized that the homebuyers, by merely claiming representative capacity, cannot unilaterally furnish letters of authority for all other homebuyers.
The Court noted that the project’s continuation under the CIRP could lead to higher costs for homebuyers, whereas the promoter’s undertaking promised no cost escalation.

The appeal was allowed; the NCLAT order dated 22‑11‑2021 (Anand Murti v. Soni Infratech (P) Ltd.) was quashed and set aside.
The affidavit dated 27‑12‑2021 filed by Shri Kashi Nath Shukla was taken on record as a binding undertaking.
The promoter was permitted to complete the project in accordance with the minutes of the stakeholders’ meeting dated 23‑10‑2021 and the affidavit‑cum‑undertaking.
The IRP was directed to submit quarterly progress reports to the NCLAT regarding the status of the housing project.
All homebuyers represented by the petitioners must furnish letters of authority in favour of the respondent (promoter) on or before 10‑07‑2026 to enable the procurement of financial assistance.
The Court ordered that the matters be listed on 15‑07‑2026 for reporting compliance with the above directions.
No immediate contempt penalty was imposed; the Court deferred coercive action pending further compliance.

The promoter must complete the project stage‑wise within 6‑15 months (±3 months) as per the undertaking.
An amount of Rs 10 crore must be arranged immediately to restart construction, with work commencing within 15‑30 days.
The cost of flats must not be escalated, and the existing Builder‑Buyer Agreements must be honoured.
A monitoring team of five persons (2 homebuyer representatives, 2 management representatives, overseen by the IRP) must be constituted.
The IRP must monitor the project and submit quarterly reports to the NCLAT.
Homebuyers must provide individual letters of authority to the promoter by the stipulated deadline to facilitate financing.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the NCLAT order, and accepted the promoter’s affidavit as a court‑sanctioned undertaking.
While noting prima facie contempt, the Court did not issue a final contempt order, opting instead for continued monitoring and compliance.
The Court directed future compliance reporting (by 15‑07‑2026) and indicated that subsequent orders will address project completion, possession handover, and any contempt penalties after reviewing the compliance status.
The matter remains open for further orders based on the forthcoming compliance reports and the progress of the housing project.