Published: · Source checked:
A proposed cancellation tied to an unpaid refund did not end the homebuyer’s allotment in Sujay Shankar Mukherjee v. Ashish Chawchharia. NCLT Kolkata granted an election between an available alternative flat, subject to CoC approval and applicable charges, or full refund with statutory interest through the plan. It did not simply restore possession of the original flat, which had gone to a third party. Official order, paragraphs 10.6–11.
Order and relief at a glance
| Item | Verified detail |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | NCLT Kolkata, Division Bench, Court-I |
| Members | Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial; Rekha Kantilal Shah, Technical |
| Application | IA(IB)160/KB/2026 in CP(IB)345/KB/2022 |
| Corporate debtor | Riverbank Developers Private Limited |
| Project | Hiland Greens Phase-I |
| Order date | |
| Result | Application allowed and disposed of, with alternative relief and conditions |
The buyer had sought reinstatement, or another flat with covered parking, registration and possession-related protection. The RP opposed the attempt to undo the earlier cancellation. The dispute therefore required the Tribunal to determine whether cancellation had ever become effective before deciding what could sensibly be ordered during CIRP. Paragraphs 4 and 7–9.
The correspondence made refund part of the cancellation
The buyer had paid toward a flat and parking space but faced delay and unresolved completion issues. He subsequently communicated an intention to cancel in conjunction with a refund of ₹18 lakh. The Tribunal examined the correspondence rather than treating the word cancellation as self-executing. It found no completed refund and no formal final communication completing the proposed cancellation. Paragraphs 5 and 8–10.2.
Its central finding was that cancellation had been conditional on payment. The company could not keep the buyer’s money while treating the corresponding allotment as conclusively terminated on the record before the Bench. The decision addressed this linked proposal and its non-performance, not every conceivable cancellation clause or refund dispute.
The ₹18 lakh figure described the earlier conditional refund arrangement. The eventual order used different language: full refund of the paid amount with interest at statutory rates, to be provided in the plan. The article does not replace that operative wording with an invented fixed interest rate or assume that the earlier proposed settlement amount defines every entitlement. Paragraphs 10.6 and 11(a).
Validity of cancellation came before the RP’s power to reverse it
The RP relied on authority concerning the limits on reversing cancellations made by former management. The Tribunal distinguished that argument because it had first found this cancellation invalid. On its reasoning, there was no valid completed cancellation for the RP to reverse. Paragraph 10.7.
That distinction is important when framing the application. A request to undo an admittedly valid cancellation is different from a request to establish that the conditions for cancellation never occurred. The correspondence, payment trail and status of refund can determine which question the Tribunal is actually asked to answer.
The case also differs from Wadhwa Buildcon’s claim re-verification decision. There, the issue was evidence supporting claims in the creditor list; here it was whether an allotment had ended and what relief remained possible after the original unit was allotted elsewhere.
Why the remedy was an election rather than automatic original possession
By the time of the application, the original unit had been allotted and possession granted to a third party. The Bench found the applicant deserved appropriate relief, but its operative order allowed two alternatives. Paragraphs 10.8–11.
Under the alternative-allotment route, the applicant would pay the necessary charges and any escalation charged to a similar allottee. The RP was to allot an available flat in Hiland Greens Phase-I with one covered parking space, approved by the CoC with 66% votes, within 15 working days of uploading the order. The RP was also to take lawful registration and possession steps in due course. Protection against new third-party rights concerned the unit to be allotted under that direction.
Under the other route, the applicant could seek full refund of the paid amount with statutory interest, duly provided for in the plan. The decision did not order an unconditional immediate cash payment by a fixed date, nor eliminate the stated conditions for an alternative unit.
Regulation 4E and the practical limits
Paragraph 10.9 reproduced Regulation 4E on handover and registration with the required CoC approval, a request by the allottee and performance of the allottee’s part. The order’s own directions preserved the approval and payment conditions. It should not be cited as permission for an RP to hand over any disputed unit without committee approval or without examining the buyer’s obligations. Paragraphs 10.9–11.
For a live matter, counsel should check the current regulation and procedural position separately. This article reports the rule and relief applied in the September order; it does not certify compliance in another project or that an alternative flat remains available today.
A source-derived preparation checklist
Useful records include the allotment and payment documents, inspection/completion correspondence, cancellation proposal, refund terms and proof of what was actually refunded. Counsel should also establish whether the original unit is still available, what relief is requested if it is not, and which approval and payment conditions attach to that alternative. These are practical inferences from the decision, rather than additional directions imposed by this article.
Did the buyer receive the original flat back?
That is not the order described here. The original unit had been allotted to a third party; the Bench granted an alternative-unit or refund election.
Was the alternative allotment unconditional?
No. Availability,66% CoC approval and the buyer’s charges/escalation obligations were expressly retained, alongside the upload-triggered15-working-day direction.
Did the Tribunal prescribe a specific refund interest rate?
The operative order said statutory rates. This note does not invent a percentage or assert that the refund has since been paid.
Primary source and later-treatment scope
The official 10 September 2026 order, particularly paragraphs 8–12, provides the evidence chronology, reasoning and directions. It was checked on 1 November 2026. Targeted official research did not establish subsequent treatment or implementation; absence of a retrieved later record is not proof that none exists.