The Supreme Court has appointed a three-member committee to oversee the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of realty major M/s Supertech Realtors Pvt Ltd, which is caught in a series of litigations by homebuyers and others over its ambitious mixed-use Supernova project in Sector 94, Noida.
The committee, headed by former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Justice M M Kumar, also comprises former National Buildings Construction Corporation (NBCC) Chairman-cum-Managing Director Anoop Kumar Mittal, and financial management expert Rajeev Mehrotra.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said in its December 16 order that it is setting up the committee in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution “to do complete justice.” It said the committee will also discharge the functions of the Board of Directors of Supertech Realtors.
The committee, it said, “shall appoint a suitable person to implement the approved project scheme and supervise its functioning. All operational decisions regarding the implementation of the approved plan shall be taken by the Committee in discharge of its functions as the Board of Directors. The role of the Appellant or his associates shall be limited to providing technical co-operation to the Committee.”
The court asked the committee to “appoint a new developer after inviting proposals and due vetting, keeping in mind the time-bound proposal, track record, experience and financial viability of such a new developer.”
The bench made it clear “that any developer associated with or related to the Corporate Debtor (Supertech Realtors Pvt Ltd) or the erstwhile management shall not be allowed to participate in the process. It is clarified that all the receivables, unsold inventory and fresh collections from buyers must be deposited in an escrow account and shall be used for construction purposes only.”
The court said that “the Committee shall act in consultation with various stakeholders, namely, the Consortium of Banks, other financial creditors, home buyers, and authorities such as NOIDA, among others. However, we make it clear that the decision of the Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties.”
It directed the development authorities, including the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), to process all approvals and licenses expeditiously without demanding that the previous dues be cleared. “This includes the registration of sub-lease deeds by NOIDA for the remaining 497 apartments (out of 582), provided full payments have been made,” the bench stated.
The court said that “there shall be a ‘zero period’ in respect of payment of dues owed to the NOIDA Authority and the financial lenders. Accordingly, no payments shall be made to these entities until completion of the project and handing over of the dwelling units to the home buyers. During this period, the NOIDA Authority and the financial lenders shall not initiate or continue any coercive action against home buyers who have paid the consideration for their respective dwelling units. Upon completion of the project, any surplus generated shall be utilized towards the satisfaction of the dues of the financial lenders and the NOIDA Authority.”
The top court also asked the committee “to appoint a reputed and experienced entity to conduct a forensic audit of the accounts of the Corporate Debtor and its parent company.”
The court was hearing a civil appeal by one of the suspended directors of Supertech Realtors challenging the August 13, 2025, judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The judgment had upheld the June 12, 2024, order of the adjudicating authority admitting the corporate debtor into CIRP. Several other stakeholders, asserting an interest in the subject matter, had also sought to be impleaded in the proceedings, following which the court on August 29, 2025, appointed advocate Rajiv Jain as amicus curiae to assist it.
Jain subsequently “recommended the constitution of a Court-appointed Committee to ensure continuity of the resolution process, with appropriate judicial oversight and strict adherence to the objectives of the IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) so as to secure equity among stakeholders and safeguard the rights of home buyers.”
The December 16 order of the Supreme Court bench stated, “The learned amicus curiae has also observed in his report that the financial creditors, within the framework of corporate finance, were expected to exercise due prudence and actively monitor financial discipline and management of the Corporate Debtor. The material on record indicates that, despite long-standing exposure to the Corporate Debtor, the lenders failed to intervene or undertake timely restructuring even when early signs of financial distress were apparent.”
“Such inaction has substantially contributed to the present state of insolvency, and in this backdrop, the claim of primacy now asserted by the financial creditors over the interests of home buyers appears considerably weakened,” it added.
Accepting the recommendations of the amicus curiae, the apex court said, “In this backdrop, and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the recommendations of the learned amicus curiae, and the need to balance the competing interests while safeguarding the rights of home buyers, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case for the exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice.”