Supreme Court Protects Genuine Homebuyers, Curbs Misuse of Insolvency Law
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has distinguished between genuine homebuyers and speculative investors, ruling that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot be misused for recovery purposes.
Real EstateInsolvency LawSupreme CourtHomebuyersSpeculative InvestorsReal EstateSep 14, 2025
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while disposing of a batch of four appeals, upheld the decisions of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that had set aside the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against two builders based on petitions filed by two allottees, Mansi Brar Fernandes and Sunita Agarwal.
The Court meticulously analyzed the agreements entered into by Fernandes and Agarwal. It found that their Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with the builders, Gayatri Infra Planner Pvt. Ltd. and Antriksh Infratech Pvt. Ltd. respectively, were not typical builder-buyer agreements but were structured as financial investments.
Key indicators of a “speculative investor,” as outlined by the Court, include:
Assured returns & buy-cack clauses: Agreements promising high, guaranteed returns (e.g., 25-35% per annum) or compulsory buy-back options.
No intent for possession: Conduct indicating the investor never intended to take possession of the property, such as not following up on construction progress or insisting only on refunds.
Deviation from RERA model: Contracts that significantly deviate from the standard model agreement prescribed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
Multiple Units: Purchase of an unusually high number of units, though this alone is not conclusive.
The Court found that Fernandes had invested ₹35 lakh with a promise of a ₹1 crore buy-back within 12 months, while Agarwal’s agreement promised 25% annual returns. The bench stated that such “risk-free contracts” placing investors in an advantageous position are detrimental to genuine homebuyers and developers, and their claims are “in the nature of recovery, not insolvency resolution.”
In a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional principles, the Court declared that the Right to Shelter is an integral part of the fundamental Right to Life under Article 21.
“The right to secure, peaceful, and timely possession of one’s home is therefore a facet of the fundamental right to shelter,” the bench observed. It emphasized that a home is not a mere commercial commodity for speculation but a fundamental human need, and the State has a constitutional obligation to protect homebuyers from fraud and exploitation.
The judgment paints a poignant picture of the plight of the middle-class homebuyer: “Having invested their lifelong savings… many are compelled to shoulder a double burden – servicing EMIs on one hand, and paying rent on the other – only to find their ‘dream home’ reduced to an unfinished building.”
Moving beyond the specific cases, the Supreme Court issued a series of mandatory directions to the government and regulatory bodies to cleanse the sector and protect homebuyers:
Strengthening adjudication: Vacancies in NCLT and NCLAT must be filled on a “war footing,” and dedicated IBC benches with additional strength should be constituted.
Expert committee: A committee chaired by a retired High Court judge must be formed within three months to suggest systemic reforms for the real estate sector.
Empowering RERA: State governments must ensure RERA authorities are adequately staffed and resourced. At least one member must be a legal expert in real estate.
Project-Specific CIRP: Insolvency resolution should typically be on a project-wise basis, not against the entire corporate debtor, to protect solvent projects.
Revival Fund: The government should consider expanding the SWAMIH fund to provide bridge financing for stressed projects undergoing CIRP. It also directed a CAG audit of the SWAMIH fund to prevent misuse of public money.
Strict scrutiny at admission: NCLTs must record a prima facie finding on whether an applicant is a genuine homebuyer or a speculative investor at the admission stage itself.
Safeguarding vulnerable buyers: Contracts with buy-back clauses for allottees over 50 must be supported by an affidavit certifying they understand the risks.
While dismissing the appeals of Fernandes and Agarwal and affirming their status as speculative investors, the Court granted them liberty to pursue their recovery claims before appropriate forums like consumer courts or civil courts, and assured that the bar of limitation would not apply.
The judgment serves as a strong warning against the misuse of the IBC while reinforcing its core objective: the revival of viable projects and the protection of the fundamental right to shelter for genuine homebuyers. It calls for a coordinated, robust effort from all stakeholders to restore faith in India’s real estate market.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main difference between a genuine homebuyer and a speculative investor according to the Supreme Court?
A genuine homebuyer is someone who intends to take possession of the property and use it as a home, while a speculative investor is someone who invests in property for financial returns without any intention of occupying it.
What are the key indicators of a speculative investor as outlined by the Court?
Key indicators include promises of high, guaranteed returns, no intent to take possession of the property, contracts that deviate from standard RERA agreements, and the purchase of multiple units.
Why did the Supreme Court rule that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot be misused by speculative investors?
The Court ruled that IBC should not be used as a recovery tool by speculative investors because it is detrimental to genuine homebuyers and the core objective of the IBC is to revive viable projects and protect the fundamental right to shelter.
What are some of the mandatory directions issued by the Supreme Court to protect homebuyers?
The Court directed the filling of vacancies in NCLT and NCLAT, the formation of an expert committee, empowering RERA, project-specific CIRP, expanding the SWAMIH fund, strict scrutiny at admission, and safeguarding vulnerable buyers.
What is the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling in the context of the real estate sector?
The ruling is significant because it protects genuine homebuyers from fraud and exploitation, reinforces the fundamental right to shelter, and calls for systemic reforms to restore faith in the real estate market.
Related News Articles
Pune's PCNTDA Residents to Get Freehold Status, Promises Maharashtra Minister Uday Samant
Maharashtra Minister Uday Samant has assured PCNTDA residents that a decision will be made on freehold status without causing financial loss to the state government.
Veriff Boosts Biometric Security to Combat Account Takeover Fraud
Biometric authentication, account takeover fraud, identity verification, facial recognition, fraud prevention
Inside Mumbai's Luxurious Abodes: A Glimpse into the Homes of India's Elite
Mumbai, often dubbed the 'Billionaire Capital of Asia,' boasts a real estate landscape that mirrors its status as India's commercial and financial hub. From opulent mansions to sleek high-rises, the city is home to some of the most stunning and expensive
Kapil Sharma: From Rs 500 Salary to Rs 300 Crore Net Worth
Kapil Sharma, the king of Indian comedy, has come a long way from his humble beginnings. Today, he owns luxurious properties and cars, and his net worth is estimated at Rs 300 crore. Explore his inspiring journey from rags to riches.
Mumbai and Delhi Emerge as Leading Luxury Real Estate Markets in Asia-Pacific
India's real estate sector is witnessing a significant boom, driven by robust economic growth, infrastructure improvements, and changing lifestyle trends. Mumbai and Delhi, in particular, are ranking among the fastest-growing luxury real estate markets in
Important Steps to Ensure Your Apartment is Free from Legal Issues Before Purchase
MahaRERA has recently directed a real estate developer near Mumbai to disclose details about any pending litigation to the public. This highlights the importance of checking for legal issues before buying an apartment.