NCLAT Refuses to Carve Out Individual Towers from Real-Estate CIRP
Date Published
In SGN Universal Construction Co. v. Shailendra Kumar Singh (2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 343), the NCLAT declined to carve out a single tower from an integrated real-estate project's CIRP — reinforcing a principle that has significant implications for contractors, development-rights holders, and homebuyers in real-estate insolvencies.
Background
The corporate debtor was developing the "Morpheus Bluebell" project in Greater Noida with multiple towers. CIRP was initiated by homebuyers of Towers 3 and 4 under Section 7. A contractor claimed exclusive construction and alienation rights over Tower 5 under a development-rights agreement and sought to carve that tower out of the CIRP pool.
Why the NCLAT said no
The Tribunal held that where a real-estate project is registered under a single RERA registration with integrated services (clubhouse, common infrastructure, shared utilities), a tower-wise separation is unworkable. The overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC, coupled with the moratorium under Section 14, precludes parallel recognition of third-party rights during CIRP. The contractor's remedies lay in filing a claim before the resolution professional.
What to watch
This decision tracks recent NCLAT jurisprudence treating RERA-registered projects as a single economic unit. For contractors with development-rights agreements in integrated projects, the practical takeaway is clear: assert your claim before the RP early in the process. Attempting to bypass CIRP through a Section 61 appeal is unlikely to succeed.
The Chambers advises stakeholders across real-estate insolvencies — lenders, homebuyers, contractors, and resolution applicants — on structuring claims and navigating the NCLT/NCLAT process.