3 S - N D B M I O M C C I I L: RD MT Irmala EVI AM Emorial Nternational Nline OOT Ourt Ompetition

NMC 02
3RD SMT. NIRMALA DEVI BAM MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL ONLINE MOOT COURT
COMPETITION BY INDORE INSTITUTE OF LAW
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE MATTER OF
KAZA PORYO………....………….…………...……………………………APPELLANT
V.
UNION OF INDIA…….……………………………….….…………...…RESPONDENTS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page | I
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [TABLE OF CONTENTS]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................................................IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................X
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...........................................................................................................XI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................XII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................................................................1
I. WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 19 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?................................................................................................1
A. The legislative Wisdom of the Legislature should be respected.............................1
B. Allotee is classified on the basis of Intelligible Differentia & such differentia does
have a reasonable nexus with object sought to be achieved...................................3
C. IBC is a beneficial legislation & there is no hardship to petitioner.........................6
II. WHETHER THE RERA (REAL ESTATE REGULATORY ACT) & CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, ARE IN CONFLICT?...................................................................7
A. Jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act 2019..................................................7
B. Rera does not Exclude The Remedies Available Under The Consumer Protection
Act………………...................................................................................................9
III. WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS ARBITRARY WHICH IS MADE IN

RERA?................................................................................................................................11
A. That the public policy should be given due regard................................................11
B. That the process of ‘Emperic Adjudication’ must be followed.............................12
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................XV
Page | II
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
i.e. that is
v. Versus
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Hon'ble Honourable
Approx. Approximate
Co. Company
Ors. Others
ed. Edition
Vol Volume
SC Supreme Court
& And
Pvt.. Private
¶ Paragraph
Ltd. Limited
RERA Real Estate (Regulation & Development)

Act, 2016
CPA Consumer Protection Act, 2019
IBC Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Page | III
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDIAN CASES
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 34 1
Atiabari v. State of Assam, (1961) 1 SCR 809 12
Chiranji Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, 1951 AIR SC 41 12
Chiranjit Lal v. Union Of India AIR 1981 SC 41 3
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 12

1979 SC 1588.
D.M. Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 2
Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 405 2
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968) 3 SCR 662 8
H.N. Shankara Shastry v. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka (2004) 6 8

SCC 230
Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, (2020) 10 SCC 783 11
Imperial Structures Ltd v. Surinder Anil Patni, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 894. 10
Jasbir Singh vs Country Colonisers Pvt Ltd, (2020) 12 SCC 286 9
Jogendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 42 2
K.S. Venkataraman v. State of Madras, (1966) 2 SCR 229 8
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 2
KS Puttuswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 1
Lachman Das Kewal Ram v. State of Bombay, (1952) SCR 710 3
Laxmi Khandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 873 3
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 8
Malay Kumar Ganguly v Dr. Sukumar Mukerjee & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 1162 10
National Seeds Corporation Ltd v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Another , (2012) 2 8
Page | IV
COMPETITION 2021
SCC 506
Nikhil Mehta & Sons v AMR Infrastructure Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 4
No. 7 of 2017
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure v. Union of India, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 4, 5
1005
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 3
Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha, 8

(2004) 1 SCC 305
Skypay Couriers Ltd v. Tata Chemicals Ltd (2000) 5 SCC 294 8
State of A.P. v. Mcdowell & Co, (1993) 3 SCC 709 2
State of Bombay v. F.N Balsara, 1951 AIR 318 3
State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli (2012) 6 SCC 312 1
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, AIR 1

2010 SC 1476
Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, (1975) 1 SCC 421 12
Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 5
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 2018 SC 357 3
Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports & another (2011) 10 SCC 9

316
STATUTES
INDIA CONST. art. 14 3
INDIA CONST. art. 14 & 19 1
INDIA CONST. art. 19 (1) g 6
INDIA CONST. part III. 12
Preamble, The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 9
(India)
Page | V
COMPETITION 2021
Preamble, The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, No. 16, Act 2
of Parliament, 2016 (India)
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 100, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 8
(India)
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India) 9
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 26 of 6, 7
2018), § 3(ii). (India)
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 No. 26 of 2
2018 (India)
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016), § 5(7). (India) 4, 5
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016), § 5(8). (India) 4, 5
The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, § 18, No. 16, Act of 10
Parliament, 2016 (India).
The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, § 2(d), No. 16, Act of 2, 12
Parliament, 2016 (India)
BOOKS
D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (15th edn, Lexis Nexis 2018) 1
DD BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1474 (8th ed. 12

LexisNexis 2008)
JOURNAL ARTICLE
M P Ram Mohan & Vishakha Raj, “The Conceptual Limits of the Indian 6
Page | VI
COMPETITION 2021
Insolvency Regime”, 33 COL. J. ASN. L., 219-263 (2020)
Palak Kumar, “Insolvency & Bankruptcy Amendment 2020: Adieu to 4

Homebuyer’s Right”, 2 DEL. UNI. L. REV., 260-283 (2020)
Phiroze K Irani, “The Courts & the Legislature in India.” 14 (3) INT. & COMP. 2
L. QUAR., 950, 968. (1965)
Subrata Roy Chowdhury, “Equality Before Law in India”, 19 (2) CAM. L. J., 3
223,238 (1961)
ONLINE SOURCES
Aditya Vikram Dua & Satish Anand Sharma, “Homebuyers’ arsenal adds 7
financial creditor status”, INDIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL
Ashita Chibber, “Remedies Under The Consumer Protection Act Not Barred By 9
The RERA Act”, THE MONDAQ
Mukesh Arora & Esa Panda, “‘Financial Creditors’ Under Insolvency 5

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 & Critical View On The Recent Amendments”, SSRN
Pareekshit Bishnoi & Parveen Agarwal, “Weighing the effect & need of the 7
‘minimum threshold’ on the home-buyers”, THE SCC ONLINE BLOG
Prachi Bhardwaj, Are you a homebuyer planning to take builder to Court? SC 11

says you can choose between seeking remedy under the RERA Act or the
Consumer Protection Act, THE SCC ONLINE BLOG
Sidhant Tiwari, “Despite RERA, home buyers can pursue remedies at consumer 10
forum: SC”, THE ECONOMIC TIMES
Vineeta Bansal, “Recognizing homebuyers as financial creditors in the event of 2

insolvencies is a welcome move, but the RERA remains the preferred route for
recovering funds”, INDIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Page | VII
COMPETITION 2021
Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 90/2017 4
Chitra Sharma & ors. v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 744/2017 4
Government of India, “Report of the Insolvency Law Committee” (Ministry of 5

Corporate Affairs, March, 2018)
Jodhpur Development Authority v. State Consumer Disp. Red. Forum, S.B. 8

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010
Pravinsinh Hematsinh Zala vs State Of Gujarat, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2

23321 of 2019
Vivek Velankar v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors, CIVIL APPLICATION 2

NO.54 OF 2016
Page | VIII
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE RESPONDENT humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which has been invoked by the Appellant.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions & arguments.
Page | IX
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF FACTS]
STATEMENT OF FACTS
KAZA PORYO is a Pvt ltd company incorporated in India. KAZA PORYO is a wholly owned
subsidiary & its legal status is manifested in the Zarma groups. It is a trustworthy real estate
developer & initiated billion dollar projects. In 2018, KAZA PORYO planned to expand their
business on big levels & initiated ten mega real estate projects in India.
As per the rules of real estate industry, the pre investment of the projects was raised from buyers
only. The post investment should be taken from the homebuyers at finishing point of the projects.
Often the projects have been deferred & the future buyers are stuck with the project for excessive
magnitude of time. The Indian Government enacted RERA, 2016 to defend the interests of the
home buyers & make the real estate developers liable for the delays in finishing the projects.
The KAZA PORYO project is started & the company offered possession to the Allottees who
made the pre investment. The company executed a conveyance deed in favour of the Allottees &
most of the flats were occupied by the Allottees. Mr. Ashok Prasad, one of the Allottees, booked
one flat of approx. value of Rs. one crore. He opted for instalment payment plan. He has paid pre
instalments amount of Rs. 50, 00,000 & will pay the rest Rs. 50, 00,000 in the post instalment.
An agreement to Sale has been executed between the KAZA PORYO & Mr. Ashok Prasad
detailing the terms & conditions of the agreement. As per the agreement, Mr. Ashok Prasad has to
make the payment of post instalment in time. If delay in the post payment the company can
impose interest & 10 penal interest. The possession of flat will be delivered within the period of
one year from the date of start of construction with the grace period of 3 months due to force
majeure.
Mr. Ashok Prasad has defaulted in making the payment of post instalment. The company
imposed interest & penal interest as per agreement. Several notice were given to Mr. Ashok
Prasad but did not make the payment for the post instalments. The amount with interest become
approx. Rs. 55, 00,000 i.e. more than the current price of the flat in question, therefore, Mr.
Ashok Prasad is not attracted to take the possession of flat & fascinated to take refund of the
amount invested by him.
Mr. Ashok Prasad had approached before the Hon’ble NCLT & filed a case against KAZA
PORYO. The corporate debtor filed its reply & taken a preliminary objection including the word
Allottees. i.e. Allottees as a Financial Creditor is a violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Page | X
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF FACTS]
KAZA PORYO has challenged the validity of the Allottees, including Mr. Ashok Prasad as
Financial Creditor before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Page | XI
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [STATEMENT OF ISSUES]
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 19 OF CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA?
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE RERA (REAL ESTATE REGULATORY ACT) & CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
ARE IN CONFLICT?
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS ARBITRARY WHICH IS MADE IN RERA?
Page | XII
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 19 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
It is submitted that the Court must exercise judicial restraint in cases where constitutional
validity of a legislation is challenged. It is argued that the legislative wisdom of the
Parliament must be respected & public policies must be given due regard for the very same
reason. The Parliament at all times is assumed to have considered the needs of the people &
there must be wisdom & reasoning relating to the absolute reality which has leads to a certain
piece of legislation being passed. The word allottees of the impugned act are not vires Article
14 of the Constitution of India as there is indeed an intelligible differentia behind the basis for
classification, relating to allottees as financial creditor.
Firstly the sale agreement is tantamount to financial debt as the agreement between the
petitioners & allottees has commercial effect of borrowing since the possession of flat is to be
transferred on receipt of installments & secondly homebuyers are covered under the
definition of financial creditors as the instalments paid by the allottees is a debt that is paid
against consideration for “time value of money”. Thus intelligible differentia does have a
reasonable nexus with the purpose & objective of the act.
Lastly, IBC is a beneficial legislation & there is no hardship to petitioner as in the IBC
(Amendment) Ordinance 2018, it included homebuyer as financial creditor & authorized
representative to represent in a committee of creditors. Henceforth, the flat allottees who
were given the status of financial creditors under the IBC can initiate corporate insolvency
resolution process against the real estate developers by filing petition under Section 7 of the
IBC.
2. WHETHER THE RERA (REAL ESTATE REGULATORY ACT) & CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, ARE IN CONFLICT?
It is argued that the CPA has wide implications when it comes to its applicability &
jurisdiction under the CPA allows the allottees to seek remedy under section 100 of the Act.
The court in various occasions has observed that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum
Page | XIII
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]
should not & would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the
Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of civil court or any
other forum as established under some enactment. Also, the Preamble of the Act provides for
better protection of the interest of consumers.
The RERA does not bar the jurisdiction of consumer forum as section 79 of the Act only bar
civil court to entertain any proceeding. The allottees are referred as consumers under the
CPA. The parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee
whether they wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an
application under the RERA. Thus there is no conflict between both the acts.
3. WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS ARBITRARY WHICH IS MADE IN

RERA?
It is submitted that the word allottees in not arbitrary under the act because public policy
made by the legislature must be given due regard. The government is entitled to make
pragmatic adjustments & policy decisions which may be necessary or called for under
prevalent peculiar circumstance. The alarming situation which the legislation has acted to
curb must be kept in mind while deciding the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of
the impugned statute. Also, the process of empiric adjudication must be followed as, the
court’s decision should be limited to the facts of the particular matter & the conflict between
the two parties not into theoretical principle put forward.
Page | XIV
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
4. WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 19

OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
[¶1.] The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court through a writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the word Allottees under RERA as violative of
article 14 & 191 of the Constitution. It is humbly submitted that the word Allottees under the
impugned act is indeed not in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner. The
submission for establishing the same has been put forward under three heads: firstly, the
legislative Wisdom of the Legislature should be respected [A]; secondly, Article 14 provides
for reasonable nexus & intelligible differentia [B] & thirdly, IBC is a beneficial legislation &
there is no hardship to petitioner [C].
5. THE LEGISLATIVE WISDOM OF THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE RESPECTED.
[¶2.] Our constitution is a living & organic document & it cannot remain static & must
grow with the nation.2 The constitutional provision has to be construed broadly & liberally
having regard to changed circumstances & the need of time & polity.3
[¶3.] Even though prima facie, certain measures adopted by the legislature might have a
discriminatory impact, but on that grounds, the court should not interfere & declare it
unconstitutional as what goes into legislation is the legislative wisdom of the legislature
enacted by the people.4 In the case of State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli5, it was held that an
enactment may not be struck down only on the grounds that it is arbitrary unless a
constitutional infirmity has been proven.
[¶4.] In the case of Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan6, the apex court held there is
always a presumption favouring the constitutionality of an enactment & that the burden of
proof lies upon him who attacks the constitutionality to show that there was a clear violation
of the constitutional principles.
[¶5.] It is a settled law that the court shall not interfere in matters which are purely within
1
INDIA CONST. art. 14 & 19.
2
KS Puttuswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
3
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, AIR 2010 SC 1476.
4
D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (15th edn, Lexis Nexis 2018).
5
State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli (2012) 6 SCC 312.
6
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 34.
Page | 1
COMPETITION 2021
the function & prerogative of the legislature & executive & exercise judicial restraint while
encroaching into their domain.7
[¶6.] In State of A.P v. Mcdowell & Co.8, the court held that a law made by the legislature
can be struck down by courts on two grounds viz., a) lack of legislative competence & b)
violation of Fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the constitution or of any other
constitutional provision. The ground of validation must fall within the four corners of these
two grounds. No enactment can be struck down just by saying that it is arbitrary &
unreasonable.9 Arbitrariness is an expression used widely & rather indiscriminately. 10 Hence
some of the other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating the Act.
[¶7.] An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that the court thinks is
unjustified.11 Parliament & the legislature are composed of representatives of the people &
are supposed to know & be aware of the needs of the people & what is good & bad for
them.12 The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom.13
[¶8.] In the present case, the purpose of the impugned legislation is clearly laid down in the
preamble of The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, (hereinafter,
‘RERA’).14 The legislature has passed this particular law & Insolvency & Bankruptcy
(Amendment) Ordinance, 201815 (which provides for homebuyers as financial creditors) in
order to revive confidence in our country’s real estate sector. 16 There was a need of
transparent government authority to keep a check on developers.
[¶9.] RERA was introduced to be a common ground for both buyers & developers & to
reduce the risks which were faced by the homebuyers before.17 Now, if the legislature felt that
such a law was required, their decision should not be questioned by the Judiciary. Thus, the
court should not be allowed to express their opinion 18 as to whether at a particular juncture or
under a particular situation prevailing in the country any such national policy should have
7
D.M. Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683.
8
State of A.P. v. Mcdowell & Co, (1993) 3 SCC 709.
9
Jogendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 42.
10
Pravinsinh Hematsinh Zala v. State of Gujarat, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23321 of 2019.
11
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569.
12
Vivek Velankar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors, CIVIL APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2016.
13
Phiroze K Irani, “The Courts & the Legislature in India.” 14 (3) INT. & COMP. L. QUAR., 950, 968. (1965).
14
Preamble, The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, No. 16, Act of Parliament, 2016 (India).
15
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 No. 26 of 2018 (India).
16
The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, § 2(d), No. 16, Act of Parliament, 2016 (India).
17
Vineeta Bansal, “Recognizing homebuyers as financial creditors in the event of insolvencies is a welcome
move, but the RERA remains the preferred route for recovering funds”, INDIA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL
(May 11, 2021, 12:18 PM) https://law.asia/homebuyers-take-rera-insolvencies/ .
18
Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 405.
Page | 2
COMPETITION 2021
been adopted or not”. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the legislative wisdom of the
Parliament should be respected.
6. ALLOTEE IS CLASSIFIED ON THE BASIS OF INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA & SUCH
DIFFERENTIA DOES HAVE A REASONABLE NEXUS WITH OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE
ACHIEVED.
[¶10.] Equality is one of the magnificent corners stones of the Indian Democracy. 19 Article
14 of the Constitution guarantees to every person the right to equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws.20 However, if the legislature takes care to reasonably classify
persons for legislative purposes21 & if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a well-
defined class, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that the
law does not apply to other people.22
[¶11.] It is indeed true that Article 14 of the Constitution ensures that there shall be no class
legislation but it doesn’t prevent the legislature from making a reasonable classification of
“persons, objects & transactions” in order to achieve certain ends.23 Therefore, to attract
Article 14, a discrimination between two persons similarly placed must be brought out.
[¶12.] For such classification to be reasonable, it must fulfil the two tests of arbitrariness,
which were first laid down in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar 24, but were later
enlarged: “It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be based on an intelligible
differentia, some real & substantial distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped
together in the class from others left out of it, & that the differentia adopted as the basis of
classification must have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question.”25
[¶13.] In the case of Lachman Das Kewal Ram v. State of Bombay,26 the court held that two
conditions must be satisfied to pass the test of permissible classification: a) the classification
must be based on intelligible differentia between the people so grouped & the people left out,
& b) there must be a rational nexus between the classification & the object sought to be
achieved.
19
Subrata Roy Chowdhury, “Equality Before Law in India”, 19 (2) CAM. L. J., 223,238 (1961).
20
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
21
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 2018 SC 357.
22
State of Bombay v. F.N Balsara, 1951 AIR 318.
23
Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 41.
24
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
25
Laxmi Khandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 873.
26
Lachman Das Kewal Ram v. State of Bombay, (1952) SCR 710.
Page | 3
COMPETITION 2021
[¶14.] It is submitted that in the present case, considering allottees as financial creditors 27
does not violate article 14 of the constitution as firstly, the sale agreement is tantamount to
financial debt (1) & secondly, homebuyers are covered under the definition of financial
creditors (2).
1. The Sale Agreement is Tantamount to Financial Debt.
[¶15.] A financial creditor is a person who owns a financial debt which is mentioned under
Section 5(7) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter ‘IBC’)28. Further, a
“financial debt” is a debt that is paid against consideration for “time value of money,” which
simply means that lenders lent money to borrowers to use, & the borrowers have to repay the
lender such money or equivalent of money after use under Section 5(8) of the IBC.29
[¶16.] In Nikhil Mehta & Sons (HUF) v. AMR Infrastructure Ltd 30, the NCLAT held that
the amount received by the developer from allottees under the guaranteed or assured return
scheme had the ‘commercial impact of a borrowing’. Further, in this case, the amount raised
by the developer was shown as “commitment charges” under the head “Financial Cost” in the
annual return, which made it clear for the NCLAT to consider such allottees as “Financial
Creditor” within the meaning of Section 5(7) of IBC.
[¶17.] In Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure v. Union of India 31, the Supreme Court
held that the sale agreement between the developer & the home buyer must have the
'commercial effect' of a borrowing, which means that money is paid in advance for temporary
use in order for the home buyer to receive a flat/apartment.
[¶18.] The Supreme Court explained that all parties have 'commercial' interests where the
real estate developer wants to benefit from the selling of the apartment 32, & the flat/apartment
buyer wants to profit from the sale of the apartment. 33 The Court came to the conclusion that
the sums collected from home buyers under real estate agreements with profit as the main
goal are, in effect, subsumed within the concept of 'financial debt' under Section 5(8)(f) of the
IBC.34
27
Moot Proposition ¶11.
28
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016), § 5(7). (India).
29
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016), § 5(8). (India).
30
Nikhil Mehta & Sons v. AMR Infrastructure Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 7 of 2017.
31
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure v. Union of India, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1005.
32
Chitra Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 744/2017.
33
Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 90/2017.
34
Palak Kumar, “Insolvency & Bankruptcy Amendment 2020: Adieu to Homebuyer’s Right”, 2 DEL. UNI. L.
REV., 260-283 (2020).
Page | 4
COMPETITION 2021
[¶19.] Consequently, it is submitted that in the present case, the agreement between allottees
& the petitioners has commercial effect of borrowing since the possession of flat is to be
transferred on receipt of instalments.35 Thus, the real estate developer wants to benefit from
the selling of the apartment to the allottees. Therefore, the sale agreement is tantamount to
financial debt.
2. Homebuyers Are Covered Under The Definition Of Financial Creditors.
[¶20.] It is submitted that homebuyers are covered under the definition of financial creditors
because of the following reasons: the debt from homebuyers is financial debt & homebuyers
are uniquely different from operational creditors.
a) The Debt from Homebuyers is Financial Debt.
[¶21.] According to Section 5(7) of the IBC36, a financial creditor is a person who owns a
financial debt, & a “financial debt” is a debt that is paid against consideration for “time value
of money,” which simply means that lenders lent money to borrowers to utilize, & after
utilization, the borrowers are required to repay the lender such money or equivalent of money
under Section 5(8) of the IBC37.
[¶22.] In Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure v. Union of India 38, the Supreme Court
while dealing with the issue that whether homebuyers could be considered at the same
pedestal as financial creditors, referred to the Insolvency Committee Report 39 which
deliberated that if forward sale or purchase transactions are structured as a tool or means for
raising finance. The court held that there is no doubt that the amount raised from allottees
would fall within section 5 (8) (f) of the IBC which provides for financial debt.
[¶23.] Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also highlighted differences 40 between the real
estate developers & operational creditors on the following grounds: (i) in operational debts, a
person supplying the goods/services is a creditor, which is exactly the opposite in real estate
projects;41 (ii) an operational creditor has no interest in or stake in the corporate debtor, while
35
36
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016), § 5(7) (India).
37
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016), § 5(8) (India).
38
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure v. Union of India, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1005.
39
Government of India, “Report of the Insolvency Law Committee” (Ministry of Corporate Affairs, March,
2018).
40
Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17.
41
Mukesh Arora & Esa Panda, “‘Financial Creditors’ Under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 & Critical
View On The Recent Amendments”, SSRN (May 12, 2021, 9:43 PM) https://ssrn.com/abstract=3791345.
Page | 5
COMPETITION 2021
an allottee is vitally concerned with the financial health of the corporate debtor; 42 & (iii) in an
operational debt, there is no consideration for the time value of money, but in real estate
projects, money is raised from the allottees against time value of money.43
[¶24.] In the present case, the allottees & the petitioner entered into an agreement whereby
the petitioner is supposed to transfer the possession of flats to the allottees. 44 The instalments
paid by the allottees is a debt that is paid against consideration for “time value of money”. 45
Further, considering the differences between operational & financial creditors the
respondents humbly submit that the debt from homebuyers should be considered as financial
debt.
3. IBC IS A BENEFICIAL LEGISLATION & THERE IS NO HARDSHIP TO PETITIONER.
[¶25.] Though the petitioners have submitted that a single allottee can knock at the doors of
the NCLT & obtain an admission order & that the management of the corporate debtor would
be removed & replaced by either somebody else, or, if not possible, the company would be
wound up. However, it is submitted that IBC is a beneficial legislation & its objective is to
provide for the going concern concept. It is further submitted that allowing allottees under
IBC would not be highly arbitrary & excessive, & thus will not violate article 19(1) (g)46.
[¶26.] The court stated that the IBC is triggered to put the Corporate Debtor back on its feet
so that the interests of unsecured creditors, such as home buyers/allottees, who are vitally
interested in the financial health of the Corporate Debtor, can be protected, & the replaced
management can carry out the real estate project & deliver flats/apartments as soon as
possible.47
[¶27.] The IBC (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 made it possible for a Home Buyer to be
deemed a Financial Creditor & have an Authorized Representative to represent them in a
Committee of Creditors. The ordinance has inserted an explanation in Section 5 (8) (f) of the
IBC to bring homebuyers under the purview of "Financial Creditors."48 Clause (i) of the
explanation states that (i) any amount raised from an allottee under the real estate project 49
42
M P Ram Mohan & Vishakha Raj, “The Conceptual Limits of the Indian Insolvency Regime”, 33 COL. J.
ASN. L., 219-263 (2020).
43
Hariharan Venkateshwaran, “Financial Creditor, Operational Creditor & An Overview on Home-Buyers
under Indian Bankruptcy Code”, 15 UNI. AMS. J. 5 (2020).
44
45
46
INDIA CONST. art. 19 (1) g.
47
Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, (2019) 3 SCC 620.
48
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 26 of 2018), § 3(ii) (India).
49
Aditya Vikram Dua & Satish Anand Sharma, “Homebuyers’ arsenal adds financial creditor status”, INDIA
Page | 6
COMPETITION 2021
shall be deemed to be an amount having commercial effect of a borrowing.50

[¶28.] Henceforth, the flat allottees who were given the status of financial creditors under the
IBC can initiate corporate insolvency resolution process against the real estate developers by
filing petition under Section 7 of the IBC & further are entitled to be a part of the committee
of creditors with voting rights in proportion to the amount of financial debt owed.51
[¶29.] Therefore, in light of the authorities cited & arguments advanced, it is respectfully
submitted that petitioner’s right to profession & business is not violated. Consequently, the
allottees in the present case, should be allowed to be a part of the Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process as financial creditors & that their claims should be given priority as per
the waterfall mechanism enshrined under the IBC.
4. WHETHER THE RERA (REAL ESTATE REGULATORY ACT) &

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, ARE IN CONFLICT?
[¶30.] It is submitted that the RERA & the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter, ‘CPA’)
are not in conflict & that the allottees can claim remedies under both the acts due to the
following reasons: firstly, Jurisdiction under the CPA allows the allottees to seek remedy [A];
secondly, RERA does not exclude the remedies available under the CPA [B].
A. JURISDICTION UNDER CPA 2019.
[¶31.] It is submitted that the CPA has wide implications when it comes to its applicability.
The jurisdiction under the act cannot be curtailed unless there is an express provision
prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of
civil court.52 The reason that the allottees have jurisdiction under the Consumer Forum is
because of two reasons: firstly, Section 100 of the Act allows for the remedies & secondly,
the preamble of the Act provides for better protection of the interest of ‘consumers’.
1. Section 100 of 2019 Act Allows for the Remedies.
BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL (May 13, 2021, 11:08 PM) https://law.asia/homebuyers-arsenal-adds-financial-

creditor-status/.
50
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 26 of 2018), § 3(ii) (India).
51
Pareekshit Bishnoi & Parveen Agarwal, “Weighing the effect & need of the ‘minimum threshold’ on the
home-buyers”, THE SCC ONLINE BLOG (May 13, 2021, 10:12 PM)
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/11/14/weighing-the-effect-and-need-of-the-minimum-threshold-on-
the-home-buyers/.
52
Sri Debiprasad Chatterjee v. Smt. Chaitali Das, (2020) 4 SCC 12.
Page | 7
COMPETITION 2021
[¶32.] Section 100 of the CPA53 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition
to & not in derogation with the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In
Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha 54, the court
observed that the remedies available under this section are in addition & not in derogation
with other available remedies. Further, the court held that it is better if the provision is
interpreted broadly, positively & purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended
jurisdiction.55 In addition, the court ruled that under the CPA additional jurisdiction has to be
conferred on the forums & not their exclusion.56
[¶33.] In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh 57, the similar consideration arose whether
the jurisdiction of the civil court was excluded. The court held that where the statute gives a
finality to the orders of the special tribunals the jurisdiction of civil courts must be held to be
excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit.
Further, where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the
scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided
may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court.58 The remedies
that are available to an aggrieved party under the CPA are wider.
[¶34.] In the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy &
Another59, the court observed that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should not &
would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum
to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as
established under some enactment.
[¶35.] Importantly, the Court had gone to the extent of saying that 60 if two different fora
have jurisdictions to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the
Consumer Forum would not be barred & the power of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate
upon the dispute could not be negated.61
[¶36.] In the present case, allottees are consumers & that they have the liberty to seek
available remedies enshrined under the CPA. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that allottees
53
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 100, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
54
Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha, (2004) 1 SCC 305.
55
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243.
56
Jodhpur Development Authority v. State Consumer Disp. Red. Forum, S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.
11316/2010.
57
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968) 3 SCR 662.
58
K.S. Venkataraman v. State of Madras, (1966) 2 SCR 229.
59
National Seeds Corporation Ltd v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr, (2012) 2 SCC 506.
60
Skypay Couriers Ltd v. Tata Chemicals Ltd (2000) 5 SCC 294.
61
H.N. Shankara Shastry v. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka (2004) 6 SCC 230.
Page | 8
COMPETITION 2021
should be allowed to avail not only those remedies as available under RERA but also those
under the CPA.
2. The Preamble of The Act Provides For Better Protection of The Interest of
‘Consumers’.
[¶37.] The preamble of the CPA, 201962 provides for protection of the interests of consumers
& for the said purpose, to establish authorities for timely & effective administration &
settlement of consumers' disputes.63 From the scheme of the Act, it can be inferred that the
main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers &
for that purpose to provide for better redressal mechanism through which cheaper, easier,
expeditious & effective redressal is made available to consumers. 64 The court held that the
quasi-judicial forums, under the act, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature & to
award, wherever appropriate.65
[¶38.] In the present case, the allottees are facing troubles with regard to interest payment 66
& no refund by the promoters. Thus, seeing the plight of the allottees it is submitted that
since the CPA is incorporated for the sole protection of consumers’ interest. 67 Therefore, the
interests of the allottees should be looked into & that they should be allowed to seek remedy
under the said act.
B. RERA DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT.
[¶39.] It is submitted that the remedies provided to an allottee under RERA are not exclusive
modalities to raise a grievance & that the provisions of the RERA do not bar consideration of
the grievance of an allottee by other fora.68 In this light, the allottees submit that firstly, the
provisions of RERA are additional alternatives & do not bar other remedies & secondly,
RERA does not bar the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums.
62
Preamble, The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
63
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
64
Jasbir Singh v. Country Colonisers Pvt Ltd, (2020) 12 SCC 286.
65
Id.
66
67
Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports & another (2011) 10 SCC 316.
68
Ashita Chibber, “Remedies Under The Consumer Protection Act Not Barred By The RERA Act”, THE
MONDAQ (May. 12, 2021, 8:48 AM)
https://www.mondaq.com/india/dodd-frank-consumer-protection-act/1059338/remedies-under-the-consumer-
protection-act-not-barred-by-the-rera-act.
Page | 9
COMPETITION 2021
1. Provisions of RERA are Additional Alternatives & Do Not Bar Other Remedies.
[¶40.] As per section 88 of the RERA, the provisions of RERA are in addition to & not in
derogation of the provisions of any other law.69 Further, in the case of Imperial Structures
Ltd v. Surinder Anil Patni,70 the court observed that in terms of Section 18 71 of the RERA, if
a promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly completed
by the date specified in the agreement.
[¶41.] The court held that the Promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount
received by him in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the
Project. Importantly, the court ruled that such right of an allottee is specifically made
“without prejudice to any other remedy available to him”.72
[¶42.] Secondly, as per section 18 of the RERA the remedy under the section is “without
prejudice to any other remedy available”.73 Thus, the remedy afforded by the CPA would be
an additional remedy to a consumer & said legal position remains unchanged even after the
enactment of the RERA.74
[¶43.] In the present case, the allottees have though approached under the RERA tribunals
first.75 However, they should also be allowed to avail the remedies available under the CPA
as RERA does not bar additional remedies available under other laws. 76 Therefore, in light of
the above cases & authorities cited, the allottees submit they have a case to initiate
proceedings under the Consumer Forums.
2. RERA does not bar the Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums.
[¶44.] Though section 79 of the RERA bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit
or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the
Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the RERA to determine. 77 In the case of Imperial
Structures Ltd v. Surinder Anil Patni, the court observed that on plain reading of the section,
69
The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, § 88, No. 16, Act of Parliament, 2016 (India).
70
Imperial Structures Ltd v. Surinder Anil Patni, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 894.
71
72
Malay Kumar Ganguly v Dr. Sukumar Mukerjee & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 1162.
73
74
Sidhant Tiwari, “Despite RERA, home buyers can pursue remedies at consumer forum: SC”, THE
ECONOMIC TIMES (May. 12, 2021, 1:48 PM)
https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/regulatory/despite-rera-home-buyers-can-pursue-remedies-at-
consumer-forum-sc/79012140.
75
76
Supra note 71, RERA, 2016, § 18.
77
Page | 10
COMPETITION 2021
an allottee would stand barred from invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.78
[¶45.] However, the court further ruled that,79 as regards the allottees who can be called
“consumers” within the meaning of the CP Act, two questions would arise; a) whether the bar
specified under Section 79 of the RERA would apply to proceedings initiated under the
provisions of the CP Act; & b) whether there is anything inconsistent in the provisions of the
CP Act with that of the RERA. The court held that there is nothing in the RERA which bars
such initiation. The absence of bar under Section 79 to the initiation of proceedings before a
fora makes the position quite clear.
[¶46.] Consequently, the parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to
the allottee whether they wish to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an
application under the RERA. Thus, the allottees humbly submit that since RERA does not bar
the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums the allottees should be allowed to initiate the
proceedings under CP Act since they are consumers.
3. WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS ARBITRARY WHICH IS MADE IN

RERA?
[¶47.] It is submitted that the word allotees is not arbitrary under RERA. The submission for
establishing the same has been put forwards under two heads: firstly, the public policy should
be given due regard [A]; secondly, the process of ‘Empiric Adjudication’ must be followed
[B].
A. THAT THE PUBLIC POLICY SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE REGARD.
[¶48.] Public Policy considerations & situation prevalent in the nation which caused the
enactment of the impugned legislation is relevant & must cause for judicial restraint in the
judiciary as the legislation is given the responsibility to make laws with respect to the needs
of the society.
[¶49.] In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v.
Radhakrishnan,80 in paragraph 15, the Supreme Court held that “For sustaining the
78
Prachi Bhardwaj, Are you a homebuyer planning to take builder to Court? SC says you can choose between
seeking remedy under the RERA Act or the Consumer Protection Act, THE SCC ONLINE BLOG (May. 13,
2021, 3:41 PM) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/11/03/are-you-a-homebuyer-planning-to-take-
builder-to-court-sc-says-you-can-choose-between-seeking-remedy-under-the-rera-act-or-the-consumer-
protection-act/.
79
Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, (2020) 10 SCC 783.
80
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1979 SC 1588.
Page | 11
COMPETITION 2021
presumption of constitutionality, the court may take into consideration, matters of common
knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times, & may assume every state of
facts which can be conceived.”81
[¶50.] The Court of Law must presume82 that the legislature while making the impugned
legislation has considered the needs of the people & the laws made by the legislature are
targeted at problems which are made manifest by experience. It is humbly submitted that the
Government is entitled to “make pragmatic adjustments & policy decisions which may be
necessary or called for under prevalent peculiar circumstances.”83
[¶51.] Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the impugned Act, being brought into
legislation due to the increasing rate dispute between the developers & buyers, the very same
alarming situation which the legislation has acted to curb must be kept in mind while
deciding the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the impugned statute.
[¶52.] The use of word allottee is to be understood on the basis of clause d of Section 2 84 of
RERA, 2016. The legislature has used the term in relation to a real estate project, means the
person to whom a property has been allotted or to be allotted for purpose of selling. 85 The
term allottee is a general definition for consumer who wish to make the purchase. Thus, it is
humbly submitted that it is not violative of law.
B. THAT THE PROCESS OF ‘EMPERIC ADJUDICATION’ MUST BE FOLLOWED.
[¶53.] Process of ‘Empiric Adjudication’, as was defined in the case of Sukhdev v.

Bhagatram86 refers to the Court adjudging only concrete cases & not indulging in abstract,
theoretical principles. In other words, the court’s decision should, so far as possible, be
limited to the facts of the particular matter & the conflict between the two parties87
[¶54.] In the present case, the adjudication must be relevant to Part III of Constitution 88 vis-
a-vis RERA without delving into a general or broad inquiry, for instance interpreting the
word arbitrary
[¶55.] In light of the above-mentioned arguments, the respondent most humbly submits that
the word allotee is not arbitrary under RERA. Thus, it is the plea of the counsel that this
81
Id.
82
Chiranji Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, 1951 AIR SC 41.
83
DD BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1474 (8th ed. LexisNexis 2008).
84
The Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, § 2(d), No. 16, Act of Parliament, 2016 (India).
85
Id. § 2(d).
86
Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, (1975) 1 SCC 421.
87
Atiabari v. State of Assam, (1961) 1 SCR 809.
88
INDIA CONST. part III.
Page | 12
COMPETITION 2021
Hon’ble court must exercise judicial restraint.
Page | 13
COMPETITION 2021
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT [PRAYER]
PRAYER
Therefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, & authorities cited,
it is humbly prayed by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to consider that:
1. The word Allottees is not violative of Article 14 & 19 of Constitution of India.
2. The RERA (Real Estate Regulatory act) & CPA, are not in conflict.
3. The word Allottees is not arbitrary which is made in RERA.
Pass any order which it deems fit in light of justice, equity & good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the RESPONDENT shall duty bound forever pray.
Sd/-
Counsel for Respondent
Page | XV
COMPETITION 2021

3 S - N D B M I O M C C I I L: RD MT Irmala EVI AM Emorial Nternational Nline OOT Ourt Ompetition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 S - N D B M I O M C C I I L: RD MT Irmala EVI AM Emorial Nternational Nline OOT Ourt Ompetition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 S - N D B M I O M C C I I L: RD MT Irmala EVI AM Emorial Nternational Nline OOT Ourt Ompetition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NMC 02

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

I. WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 19 OF

A. The legislative Wisdom of the Legislature should be respected.............................1

C. IBC is a beneficial legislation & there is no hardship to petitioner.........................6

A. Jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act 2019..................................................7

III. WHETHER THE WORD ALLOTTEES IS ARBITRARY WHICH IS MADE IN

A. That the public policy should be given due regard................................................11

B. That the process of ‘Emperic Adjudication’ must be followed.............................12

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

RERA Real Estate (Regulation & Development)

CPA Consumer Protection Act, 2019

IBC Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 34 1

Atiabari v. State of Assam, (1961) 1 SCR 809 12

Chiranji Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India, 1951 AIR SC 41 12

Chiranjit Lal v. Union Of India AIR 1981 SC 41 3

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 12

D.M. Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 2

Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 405 2

Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968) 3 SCR 662 8

H.N. Shankara Shastry v. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka (2004) 6 8

Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni, (2020) 10 SCC 783 11

Jasbir Singh vs Country Colonisers Pvt Ltd, (2020) 12 SCC 286 9

Jogendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 42 2

K.S. Venkataraman v. State of Madras, (1966) 2 SCR 229 8

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 2

KS Puttuswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 1

Lachman Das Kewal Ram v. State of Bombay, (1952) SCR 710 3

Laxmi Khandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 873 3

Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 8

National Seeds Corporation Ltd v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Another , (2012) 2 8

Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 3

Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha, 8

Skypay Couriers Ltd v. Tata Chemicals Ltd (2000) 5 SCC 294 8

State of A.P. v. Mcdowell & Co, (1993) 3 SCC 709 2

State of Bombay v. F.N Balsara, 1951 AIR 318 3

State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli (2012) 6 SCC 312 1

State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, AIR 1

Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, (1975) 1 SCC 421 12

Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 5

Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports & another (2011) 10 SCC 9

INDIA CONST. art. 14 3

INDIA CONST. art. 14 & 19 1

INDIA CONST. art. 19 (1) g 6

INDIA CONST. part III. 12

DD BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1474 (8th ed. 12

Insolvency Regime”, 33 COL. J. ASN. L., 219-263 (2020)

Palak Kumar, “Insolvency & Bankruptcy Amendment 2020: Adieu to 4

Mukesh Arora & Esa Panda, “‘Financial Creditors’ Under Insolvency 5

Prachi Bhardwaj, Are you a homebuyer planning to take builder to Court? SC 11

Vineeta Bansal, “Recognizing homebuyers as financial creditors in the event of 2

Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 90/2017 4

Government of India, “Report of the Insolvency Law Committee” (Ministry of 5