“~2000% "surge in interest in just 6 years" — during the insolvency resolution process”

NCLT-Approved Resolution Plan = Forward-looking. Not a tool for backward recovery.

Sub: Request for Administrative Intervention to Ensure Compliance with IBC Section 31 and NCLT-Approved Resolution Plan: Case of Illegal 2000% Interest escalated by Suraksha Realty"

1. ISSUE IN BRIEF

Post approval of the Resolution Plan (07.03.2023), “M/s Suraksha Realty (Successful Resolution Applicant of Jaypee Infratech Limited) has raised substantial interest demand which appear to relate to pre-CIRP liabilities”.

In my case:

Total Paid amount as on 12 Dec 20214: ₹7,318,537.93
Unpaid amount Raised on 18 Jul 2016: ₹414,572.94; SOAs, Page 4 of 7, Sr. No. 48
Interest amount recorded (01 Aug 2018): ₹93,262; SOA-2019, Page 4 of 7, Sr. No. 48
Escalated Interest Demand (22 Sep.2025): ₹19,05,921; SOA-2025, Page 4 of 7, Sr. No. 48
Net Escalation: ~2000% escalation (≈20x) over 2018-2025, interest within 6.9 years

👉2000% escalation (≈16x); This disproportionate escalation raises serious concerns regarding consistency with the approved Resolution Plan and statutory framework.

2. STATUTORY POSITION – IBC SECTION 31

Under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:

The approved Resolution Plan is binding on all stakeholders
It provides finality to all claims and liabilities

Settled Legal Principle (Clean Slate)

Only those liabilities which are expressly preserved in the Resolution Plan survive.
All other claims, including prior interest and penalties, stand extinguished upon approval.

3. RELEVANCE OF NCLT APPROVAL ORDER

The Hon’ble NCLT Approval Order dated 07.03.2023:

Clearly defines the framework for post-resolution obligations
Under Paras 17.7 & 17.8 (Page 261 of 462), specifies categories of liabilities that may continue

However:

Pre-CIRP interest does not appear within the preserved categories- A forward-looking framework
Pre-resolution dues are not provided for within the approved plan.
Any demand linked to such extinguished liabilities raises a question of implementation inconsistency

👉 “If not provided in the plan, no recovery right survives.”

💡 “No plan provision = no recovery right.”

“The apparent continuation and escalation of past dues through interest accrual raises a concern regarding the effective implementation of the ‘clean slate’ principle. This warrants clarification to ensure consistency with the approved Resolution Plan.”

4. NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVENTION

This representation does not seek adjudication, but requests administrative oversight to ensure proper and consistent implementation of the approved Resolution Plan.

Given that the concerned authority is:

The competent planning and regulatory authority
A stakeholder in the implementation ecosystem of the project
Responsible for ensuring orderly and compliant project execution

👉 The Authority is best placed to:

Seek clarification from the concerned developer
Ensure compliance with the approved framework
Prevent any systemic deviation in implementation

5. PUBLIC INTEREST DIMENSION

"1,245, Verified signatures are from real Homebuyers."

1,245+ allottees have raised similar concerns
Indicates a pattern affecting the entire project
Risks:
- Widespread financial disputes
- Payment resistance
- Delay in project completion

Timely administrative guidance can prevent escalation

6. NATURE OF REPRESENTATION

This representation does not seek adjudication, but requests administrative oversight to ensure proper and consistent implementation of the approved Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC.

“The project remains under construction, with no handover to allottees even after more than 15 years since initial allotments, further compounding the financial burden on homebuyers.”

7. SPECIFIC REQUESTS

It is respectfully requested that your office may:

A. SEEK CLARIFICATION FROM DEVELOPER

On:

Legal basis of interest demands
Whether such demands align with Resolution Plan provisions

B. ENSURE TRANSPARENT RECONCILIATION

Direct that:

Allottees are provided clear break-up of dues
Each component is linked to specific Resolution Plan provisions

C. VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31

Ensure that:

No extinguished pre-CIRP liabilities are being revived
Demands are consistent with binding Resolution Plan

D. INITIATE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

Through concerned department to:

Examine deviation, if any
Prevent further escalation of disputes

E. ISSUE INTERIM ADVISORY (IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE)

To:

Maintain status quo on disputed components
Avoid coercive recovery until clarity is established

8. CONCLUSION

The issue pertains to implementation of a binding Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC, and not merely an individual billing dispute.

Any re-litigation or indirect revival of settled claims risks undermining the finality of the Hon’ble NCLT Order and may adversely impact regulatory certainty and orderly project governance.

Timely administrative intervention is therefore essential to:

Ensure compliance
Protect homebuyers
Support smooth and stable project completion

8) Annexures

A) Annexure 1- "1,248, Verified signatures" are from real Homebuyers."

Click for the petition link below

"change.org/suraksharealtyexploitation"

[Scan 1,225+ Signatures]

B) Annexure_A2_ NCLT_ Approved _Order (Page 261 of 472, Paras 17.7 & 17.8)

Legal Web-link below

https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/order/2023-03-07-194330-rzby7-3cdbb3eaebb8aa041ce20c482629b3f3.pdf

[Scan IBBI order]

B) Annexure 2- Statements of Account below

Attached Statements of Account (for reference). Figures reflect a significant increase during the resolution period.

“Homebuyer Statements of Account (SOAs) were issued by Jaypee Infratech up to 2024, and by Suraksha Realty from 2025 onwards.”

“Interest Outstanding (C): ₹14,07,548.82 (example; similar across other SOAs—Page 1, left column).”

C) Annexure 3- Emails communications with Suraksha Realty below

SOA-104-22Sept 2025.pdf

SOA 104; 9 Aug 2018.pdf