NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has barred Supertech Realtors and its suspended director from establishing any third-party rights in the ‘Supernova’ project in Noida.
Supertech Realtors, a subsidiary of Supertech Ltd, is mired in insolvency proceedings and is working on a mixed-use real estate development named ‘Supernova’. This project includes residential units, commercial space, office areas, studio and service apartments, and shopping centers situated in Sector 94 of Noida.
The project is intended to be a towering structure with 80 floors, designed to be the tallest building in the Delhi-NCR region at 300 meters high.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N Kotiswar Singh has joined Noida Authority as a party to the case.
The court ordered, “The appellant (suspended director Ram Kishore Arora) and their associates are prohibited from alienating or creating third-party rights in the property in question.”
When it was mentioned by advocate Rajiv Jain that Supertech Realtors was not cooperating with the interim resolution professional (IRP) appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal, the bench stated, “The appellant must assist the IRP fully and provide all necessary records.” Furthermore, it was instructed that a digital copy of all records provided to the IRP should also be shared with the amicus curiae.
The bench advised that the IRP should conduct any statutory requirements needed, with prior notice given to the amicus curiae.
Senior advocate K Parmeshwar and advocate Govind Jee, representing the Supernova Apartment Owners Association (SNAOA), argued that since the registration of properties for homeowners involves the Noida Authority, it should be included as a party in the case.
They highlighted concerns about Supertech Realtors potentially delineating some properties within the project. The bench acknowledged these points and granted the SNAOA’s application.
Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing another group of homeowners, noted that the Supernova project is 70% complete and cannot be compared with other real estate projects that have undergone a court-monitored resolution process.
Justice Surya Kant responded that the court was aware of this and had already proposed the formation of a committee to engage a co-developer transparently, who could invest funds into the project; otherwise, it might necessitate a CBI investigation.
The Supreme Court has agreed to other interim applications and scheduled a further hearing for October 8. It permitted Arora and Supertech Realtors to submit their responses to the report provided by the amicus.
In his report from last week, advocate Jain recommended that the Supreme Court adopt a court-monitored hybrid resolution process, similar to that used for the Amrapali and Unitech cases, with former Supreme Court judge Navin Sinha overseeing the completion of the Supernova project.
Jain indicated that all stakeholders—homebuyers, financial creditors, banks, and financial institutions—expressed confidence in a court-monitored resolution process.
“The jurisprudence developed in the Amrapali, JAL/YEIDA (Jaypee Group case), and Supertech cases illustrates a need for judicial innovation when conventional insolvency processes fail to safeguard homebuyers,” Jain’s report stated.
He proposed a court-monitored hybrid mechanism, emphasizing the necessity for robust standards for developers and project managers. Such a structure would reconcile financial creditors’ rights with the imperative to deliver homes, ultimately achieving the ‘complete justice’ that the court seeks in similar situations.
Jain recommended appointing former Supreme Court judge Navin Sinha and former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court M M Kumar, alongside a past president of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and a former member of the NHRC, to supervise the process.
He asserted that the promoter/appellant should be removed from control, potentially limiting their role to technical cooperation alone, and key management personnel should be excluded from any resolution mechanism.
The report also suggested a forensic audit of the accounts of Supertech Realtors and its parent company by a “reputable and experienced” entity.
The amicus noted divergent opinions among homebuyers regarding the resolution process model for completing the project.
In his 721-page report, the amicus urged the court to appoint a new board of directors for Supertech Realtors and a Project Management Consultant, such as the NBCC, to expedite the ambitious project. On August 29, the Supreme Court appointed Jain as amicus curiae, acknowledging the case’s complexity.
Arora is contesting the August 13 order from the NCLAT that permitted the initiation of insolvency proceedings against Supertech Realtors, which the Delhi bench of the NCLT had ordered in response to a petition from Bank of Maharashtra, citing default.
