top of page

​

 

 

 

FAQ-NCLT 60(5)(c)

​

 

 

Title:

 

Why Jaypee Homebuyers Must File Under Section 60(5)(c) IBC Against Suraksha’s Illegal Interest & SOA Manipulation

 

Purpose:

 

To explain clearly, in one page, why the only correct legal remedy for Suraksha’s inflated SOA, compound interest, revived dues, and plan-violation is an Interlocutory Application under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before NCLT Allahabad.

​

​

1. Background

​

The NCLT-approved Resolution Plan dated 07.03.2023 (Suraksha Realty for Jaypee Infratech Ltd.) is binding under IBC Section 31.
Suraksha must follow it strictly.

​

However, homebuyers are receiving:

  • Compounded interest >20%

  • Revival of extinguished pre-CIRP dues

  • SOA inflation year-on-year

  • Coercive recovery mails

  • Entries not permitted under the plan

 

This is non-compliance with the approved plan.

​

2. Why Section 60(5)(c) Is the Correct Remedy

​

Section 60(5) gives NCLT power to decide disputes.


It has 3 clauses:

​

  • 60(5)(a) – CIRP process, RP/CoC, claim

        60(5)(a) = CIRP process issues (RP/CoC/claims)

       ❌ Not our situation**

​

  • 60(5)(b) – liquidation matters. 

       liquidation matters

​

  • 60(5)(c) – implementation of the resolution plan

        60(5)(c) = Implementation of the approved Resolution Plan

​

      🔥 Exactly our situation**

       Suraksha’s actions —

  1.  compound interest

  2.  inflated SOA

  3.  revival of extinguished dues

  4.  ignoring NCLT’s order under Section 31

  5.  coercive demands

        — are direct violations of the Plan, not new “claims”.

​

So we are not challenging the plan.
We are enforcing the plan.
And enforcement falls ONLY under Section 60(5)(c).

 

Our issue is not about CIRP, RP, claims, or liquidation.

 

Our issue IS about Suraksha violating the approved Resolution Plan.

 

Therefore, the dispute falls precisely under:

​

✔ Section 60(5)(c): “questions relating to implementation of the resolution plan.”

​

​

3. Why Not High Court / Consumer Court?

​

High Court (Art. 226)
→ Will redirect to NCLT because IBC Section 238 overrides all other laws.
→ HC does NOT supervise plan implementation.

​

Consumer Court
→ No jurisdiction in IBC plan disputes.
→ Already dismissed similar Jaypee cases.

Therefore, NCLT is the only competent forum.

​

4. What Relief Homebuyers Should Seek (Prayers)

​

In light of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

​​

  1. Direct the Successful Resolution Applicant, Suraksha Realty Ltd., to implement the Resolution Plan approved on 07.03.2023 strictly in terms of Section 31 of the IBC.

  2. Quash and set aside all inflated, compounded, or unauthorized interest entries reflected in the Applicant’s Statement of Account (SOA), being contrary to the approved Resolution Plan.

  3. Declare that all pre-CIRP interest, penalties, and delayed-payment charges stand extinguished in terms of the approved Resolution Plan and cannot be revived.

  4. Direct Suraksha Realty Ltd. to issue a corrected SOA strictly in accordance with the approved Resolution Plan, without compound interest, without post-facto inflation, and without revival of extinguished dues.

  5. Grant an interim stay restraining Suraksha Realty Ltd. from demanding, recovering, or coercing payment of any inflated or disputed amounts from the Applicant during the pendency of the present Application.

  6. Direct the Implementation & Monitoring Committee (IMC) to conduct verification/audit of all SOA entries for the Applicant, and to ensure strict compliance of the approved Resolution Plan.

  7. Pass appropriate directions under Section 74 of the IBC for deliberate non-compliance of the Resolution Plan by the SRA, if so established.

  8. Pass any other order or direction deemed fit in the interest of justice.

​

​

5. Conclusion

We are not reopening the plan.
We are enforcing the plan.
Therefore, the ONLY correct legal action is:

​

Interlocutory Application under Section 60(5)(c), IBC

Before NCLT Allahabad.

​

​

​​

Q1: Why not file in Consumer Court?

Because interest/SOA issues relate to implementation of the Resolution Plan. Consumer Court has zero jurisdiction in IBC matters.

 

Q2: Why not file in High Court?

High Court will redirect to NCLT because IBC Section 238 overrides all other laws. Plan implementation = NCLT only.

 

Q3: Why Section 60(5)(c)?

Because Suraksha’s actions violate the approved plan. Implementation disputes fall only under 60(5)(c).

 

Q4: Why not 60(5)(a)?

60(5)(a) = CIRP-related matters (claims, RP, CoC). Our dispute is post-CIRP and about plan implementation → 60(5)(c).

 

Q5: Why do we need Interim Stay?

To stop Suraksha from adding illegal interest, inflating SOA, cancelling units, or coercing payment while the case is pending.

 

Q6: Will we lose the unit if we file?

No. Filing protects your allotment because NCLT can freeze status until dispute is resolved.

 

Q7: Do we need two lawyers?

Yes — Delhi lawyer to draft + Allahabad lawyer to file and argue. This is standard for IBC matters.

​​​

1️⃣ Why can’t one lawyer handle everything?

​

Because the case has two different roles:

  • IBC specialist (Delhi):
    Drafts the 60(5)(c) application, frames legal grounds, cites precedents (Essar Steel, Section 31, Section 238), and builds the strategy.

  • Local counsel (Allahabad):


Handles filing, defects, mentions, registry interaction, and physical appearances.

Each role requires different expertise.

​​

2️⃣ Why do we need a Delhi-based IBC expert?

​

Because our matter involves:

  • Resolution Plan interpretation

  • Plan-compliance dispute

  • Revival of extinguished claims

  • SOA manipulation

  • Core IBC jurisprudence

Delhi lawyers work daily on complex IBC cases and know how to structure a strong, admissible 60(5)(c) petition.

This increases success probability dramatically.

​

3️⃣ Why do we also need an Allahabad local counsel?

​

Because:

  • Filing happens in NCLT Allahabad

  • Registry defects are common

  • Mentioning/urgency hearings need physical presence

  • Procedural dates are frequent

  • Local coordination is essential

Without a local counsel, filings get delayed or rejected.

​

4️⃣ Has this dual-structure worked in other big IBC cases?

​

Yes — in almost every major CIRP:

  • Amrapali

  • Unitech

  • Jaypee (previous rounds)

  • Bhushan Steel

  • Essar Steel

  • IL&FS

Big matters always use:

​

👉 Lead IBC counsel (Delhi) + Local counsel (bench city)

​

5️⃣ Is this more expensive?

​

Surprisingly, no.
The cost is shared across homebuyers, and:

  • Heavy work (drafting/strategy) is done by the Delhi expert

  • Routine appearances (cheaper) are handled by local counsel

This keeps total cost lower and more efficient.

​

6️⃣ What happens if we choose only one lawyer?

​

High risks:

  • Filing defects

  • Delays in registry clearance

  • Missed dates

  • Weak drafting

  • Possibility of dismissal or transfer

For a 20,000-homebuyer case involving crores in illegal demands, these risks are too high.

​

7️⃣ What is the safest model for our Section 60(5)(c) case?

​

✔ One Delhi IBC expert – strategy, drafting, arguments
✔ One Allahabad counsel – filing, defects, local hearings

This is the standard winning model used in all big cases.

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

Updated: 26 Nov 2025

Prepared by- @suveshvsaa13 / X

Sign & Share A Petition

Email: "ind.vision47@gmail.com"

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

bottom of page