NCLT Mumbai Rejects Homebuyer Claims in E-Commerce Magnum CIRP
Court / Authority
NCLT & NCLAT
Update / Judgement Date
29 Jun 2026
Source
WCP News Bulletin
Author
Manas Yadav — WCP Legal Desk
Reading Time
2 min read
View Count
Background
The Mumbai Bench-II of the National Company Law Tribunal has dismissed a batch of six interlocutory applications filed by multiple applicants seeking recognition as financial creditors or homebuyers in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of E Commerce Magnum Solution Limited. The applications were moved under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the Resolution Professional, Pankaj Ramandas Majithia, seeking directions for admission of claims and a stay on Committee of Creditors (CoC) meetings and voting on any resolution plan. The applicants relied on an allotment letter dated 7 April 2019, claiming allotment of multiple residential apartments in a proposed project titled “Marquis”, and contended that an amount of ₹48 lakh each had been paid on their behalf by a third party. They argued that the Resolution Professional exceeded his jurisdiction by refusing to admit their claims and by scrutinising the underlying transactions.
No Disbursement, No Financial Debt
Rejecting the plea, the NCLT held that the applicants failed to establish the existence of a “financial debt” under Section 5(8) of the IBC. The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted position that no amount was disbursed by the applicants themselves to the corporate debtor, and the alleged payments were made by a third party without any assignment, agency, or authorisation document. In the absence of disbursement by the claimants, the essential ingredient of financial debt was held to be missing.
The Bench further held that the applicants could not be treated as homebuyers. Relying on Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India and Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd., the Tribunal observed that homebuyer status under the IBC is premised on actual financing of the project. The allotment letter merely reflected an investment arrangement in a proposed, unregistered project, with no RERA registration or agreement for sale. Accordingly, all six applications were dismissed as devoid of merit.
Full Judgement / Attachment
Full Judgement
Frequently asked questions about NCLT & NCLAT
- What are the NCLT and NCLAT?
- The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) were constituted on 1 June 2016 under the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLT sits in benches across India, and the NCLAT hears appeals from it, with its principal bench in New Delhi and a bench in Chennai.
- What cases does the NCLT hear?
- The NCLT is the Adjudicating Authority for corporate insolvency under the IBC. It also hears company law matters, including oppression and mismanagement petitions, schemes of merger and demerger, reduction of capital, and class action suits.
- What is the time limit to appeal an NCLT order to the NCLAT?
- Under the Companies Act, the appeal is due within 45 days, extendable by up to 45 days. Under the IBC, it is due within 30 days, extendable by up to 15 days. These outer limits are strictly applied.
- How can I check NCLT case status or orders?
- Case status, cause lists and orders are available on the NCLT website (nclt.gov.in) and the NCLAT website (nclat.nic.in), searchable by case number, party name or bench.
- How can White Collar Professional help with a NCLT or NCLAT matter?
- Post your requirement on White Collar Professional to receive proposals from verified Company Secretaries, Insolvency Professionals and Advocates, compare them, and pay securely through the platform. This page also tracks the latest NCLT or NCLAT NCLT and NCLAT judgements as they are reported.
