MANSI BRAR FERNANDES versus SHUBHA SHARMA AND ANR.

MANSI BRAR FERNANDES versus SHUBHA SHARMA AND ANR.

On the facts of the appeals the MoUs evidenced buyback/assured-return arrangements and absence of intent to take possession; accordingly both appellants were speculative investors and not entitled to initiate CIRP under Section 7 IBC, so the NCLAT’s setting aside of admission orders is affirmed; however, where the NCLAT held the Amendment Ordinance inapplicable, that finding is set aside and the Ordinance/Amendment Act is held applicable to the facts insofar as procedural compliance was feasible, with the Court applying actus curiae neminem gravabit principles to cure defects.

Parties
Appellant / Homebuyer / Financial Creditor: Mansi Brar Fernandes; Respondent / Former Director of Gayatri Infra Planner Pvt. Ltd.: Shubha Sharma; Cross Appellant / Director of Gayatri Infra Planner Pvt. Ltd.: Ashlesh Gupta; Appellant / Homebuyer / Financial Creditor: Sunita Agarwal; Respondent / Corporate Debtor: Gayatri Infra Planner Private Limited; Respondent / Corporate Debtor: Antriksh Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (appeals Disposed)
Outcome
Appeals disposed of; NCLAT findings that appellants are speculative investors affirmed; first impugned order set aside insofar as it held the Ordinance/Amendment Act inapplicable; Ordinance/Amendment Act held applicable to the facts where feasible
Legal Topics
Speculative Investors, Section 7 IBC, Ordinance/amendment Act Applicability, Buyback Agreements, Right to Shelter (article 21), RERA, Nclt/nclat Procedure and Directions
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Real Estate Constitutional Law Speculative Investors Section 7 IBC Ordinance/amendment Act Applicability Buyback Agreements Right to Shelter (article 21) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mansi Brar Fernandes

Appellant / Homebuyer / Financial Creditor

Shubha Sharma

Respondent / Former Director of Gayatri Infra Planner Pvt. Ltd.

Ashlesh Gupta

Cross Appellant / Director of Gayatri Infra Planner Pvt. Ltd.

Sunita Agarwal

Appellant / Homebuyer / Financial Creditor

Gayatri Infra Planner Private Limited

Respondent / Corporate Debtor

Antriksh Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent / Corporate Debtor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (appeals Disposed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants fall within the category of speculative investors and are disentitled to initiate proceedings under Section 7 IBC
  2. 2 Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 / IBC (Amendment) Act, 2020 (threshold requirement for allottees) was applicable to the pending proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts of the appeals the MoUs evidenced buyback/assured-return arrangements and absence of intent to take possession; accordingly both appellants were speculative investors and not entitled to initiate CIRP under Section 7 IBC, so the NCLAT’s setting aside of admission orders is affirmed; however, where the NCLAT held the Amendment Ordinance inapplicable, that finding is set aside and the Ordinance/Amendment Act is held applicable to the facts insofar as procedural compliance was feasible, with the Court applying actus curiae neminem gravabit principles to cure defects.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of; NCLAT findings that appellants are speculative investors affirmed; first impugned order set aside insofar as it held the Ordinance/Amendment Act inapplicable; Ordinance/Amendment Act held applicable to the facts where feasible

Orders

  • Findings of NCLAT holding appellants (Mansi Brar Fernandes and Sunita Agarwal) to be speculative investors are affirmed and impugned orders setting aside admission of Section 7 applications stand affirmed (para 24(i), 18.8)
  • First impugned NCLAT order set aside insofar as it held the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 / IBC (Amendment) Act, 2020 inapplicable; Ordinance/Amendment Act is applicable to the facts where compliance was feasible (paras 19.6-19.7, 24(ii))