IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI, COURT - IV

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024

(Under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with
Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating
Authority) Rules, 2016)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors.

…Financial Creditors / Applicants

VERSUS

M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited

…Corporate Debtor / Respondent

Pronounced on: 19.11.2024

CORAM:
SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON’BLE
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DR. SANJEEV RANJAN, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Present:
For Applicant : Adv. Gautam Singhal, Adv. Amit Singh, Adv.
Rajat Chaudhary, Adv. Kauika, Adv. Aartha
Vishnoi.

For Respondent : -

ORDER

PER: MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 1 of 19
 1. This Petition is filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & 39 others (“Petitioners”)
seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”)
against M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited [CIN:
U70101DL2009PTC193186] (“Corporate Debtor”).

2. The Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 13.08.2009, under the

Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at 1 Main Road Maujpur,
Delhi, India, 110053. Therefore, this Bench has jurisdiction to deal with
this petition.

3. The Corporate Debtor namely M/s. Morpheus Prodevelopers Private

Limited is engaged in the real estate and construction business. In the year
2019, the Corporate Debtor introduced a residential project called
Morpheus Bluebell comprising of 3 multistoried residential towers i.e.
Towers 3, 4 and 5, located at Plot no. 2, GH-04, Sector 4, Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh. Further, Tower-3, Tower-
4 and Tower-5 comprise a total of 356 flats out of which total sold units
are 248 flats. Mr. Santraj Kasana (since 13.08.2012) and Bhavesh Kurnar
Singh (09.11.2020) are presently serving directors of the Respondent-
Corporate Debtor company and few of the directors have already resigned
way back.

4. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent has, despite due notice, chosen
not to appear before this Bench in the present proceedings. Consequently,
in the absence of any appearance or representation on the part of the
Respondent, and in view of their failure to comply with the directions of the
this Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has been set ex-parte by this
Bench vide its order dated 01.04.2024.

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 2 of 19
 5. Further the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that:

5.1 The Petitioners with a view to purchase their home shown interest in
this scheme and reserved housing units by paying an initial amount
i.e. 10% of the total cost of the Unit in project of the Respondent
namely i.e. Morpheus Bluebell. While booking the flats, Petitioners/
Homebuyers were given assurance to provide the Builder Buyer
Agreement (Hereinafter referred to as BBA) within a period of 45 days.
However, immediately after the booking of the flats, a legal dispute
over land acquisition culminated with the Authority, and the
Respondent withheld the execution of the BBA for all the booked flats,
until 2014.

5.2 In 2014, Corporate Debtor issued Allotment- Cum-Builder-Buyer

Agreements, with detailed terms and conditions and the BBA were
executed accordingly between the Petitioners and CD. BBA was
issued, the amount advanced details were duly mentioned in clause
19, which stipulates for duration for handover the possession of flat.

5.3 As per agreement, the Corporate Debtor was under obligation to

complete the construction in another 6 months grace period, and the
promoter failed to handover the flats till 42 months from the
execution of the Agreements of the homebuyers and another default
was committed by the Respondent.

5.4 The first default on the part of the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor
occurred on failure of promoter in handing over the Possession of flat
till June 2017 (36 months from the date of execution of the BBA).
Thereafter, Respondent also failed to complete the project and

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 3 of 19
 handover the flats of the Petitioner-homebuyers by additional grace
period of 6 months i.e. 42 months from the execution of the
Agreement.

5.5 During this period, in the year 2016, the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act 2016 was enacted to regulate the Infrastructure
sector, and accordingly, the registration of all ongoing projects was
made mandatory with the RERA. Accordingly, the project of the
Corporate Debtor was registered on 15.08.2017 under the name
"Morpheus Bluebell" with UP RERA Authority at Project ID
UPRERAPRJ11705. The Respondent had inappropriately extended
the date as December 2020 for completion of the Project, while getting
the registration of the Project done with RERA. Respondent also
started convincing the homebuyers to handover the flats till
December 2020.

5.6 However, after various follow-up and reminders by the Petitioners for
knowing the status and date of completion of the project, the
Respondent vide a letter MOM dated 24.09.2017 issued a new
roadmap to complete the project assuring to handover the flats in 15
months.

5.7 In March 2020, due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the extension

of another six months i.e. till June 2021 was given to the Corporate
debtor on the request and the Corporate debtor kept assuring all the
homebuyers to complete the project at the earliest after June 2021.
Due to no visible construction and proper explanation and
justification by the Respondent for delaying the project time and

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 4 of 19
 again, the extension was not granted by RERA to the Respondent's
project and therefore, the registration of RERA expired.

5.8 After expiration of the validity of the RERA registration, with a view
to expedite the process of construction, various homebuyers also
approached the RERA and other Forums. Few of the homebuyers
through association also approached the RERA u/s 8 of The Real
Estate (Regulation &Development) Act 2016 and few meetings were
also held between the parties, but all remained futile as Promoter CD
choose to delay and derail the process.

5.9 Even after receiving the payments against the sale consideration
value of the flats from homebuyers, the promoter continuedly
defaulted time to time (starting from June 2017 to July 2022 in the
name of grace, and under the garb of section 8 proceedings) and
ultimately failed to handover the flats till today. The Respondent also
submitted a letter in April 2022 to Sh. D.K. Singh, Consultant, Project
Management Division, UPRERA, highlighting key financial details of
the Project, duel debt and payments received by the homebuyers of
the 'Morpheus Bluebell' which also includes the details of the
Applicants and admission of the debt and default and receipt of
payments from homebuyers.

5.10 However, there was no visible development of construction work at

the project site until October 2023, even after several assurances and
commitments. The Respondent CD has consistently defaulted and
failed to hand over the flats to the homebuyers / Financial Creditors.
The Petitioners / Homebuyers have been eagerly waiting for the

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 5 of 19
 completion of the project and to take possession of the flats since
June 2017.

5.11 Corporate Debtor also attempted to cheat few new homebuyers by

selling the same unit to more than one homebuyers. With a view to
take up the cause and issues of the Homebuyers, an Association
namely Morpheus Blue Bell Welfare Association" has been formed by
the homebuyers and the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the President and
General Secretary of the said Association. The Petitioner No.1 and 2
have been authorised (through a consent letter) by more than 85
homebuyers to initiate any legal action required to safeguard the
interest of the homebuyers.

5.12 However, even after various efforts, follow-ups, assurances by the

Respondent during various meetings and otherwise, till date there is
no indication or likelihood of completion of the project. The instant
case is a case of continuous default starting from June-July 2017 to
2023 and till date. The assurances/ promises/ grace/ RERA
completion date/ extension for completing the project and handover
the flats of the respective homebuyers, be considered as admission
on the part of the Promoter for the purposes of extension of the date
of default. Therefore, being left with no option, the Petitioners
homebuyers are invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

6. We have heard the learned counsels appearing the Petitioners at length and
have carefully considered the submissions made on their behalf. We have
also perused the documents and materials on record, including pleadings,
affidavits, exhibits, and any other relevant documents filed in this matter.

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 6 of 19
 6.1 The present Petition has been filed by 40 homebuyers, who are the
allottees of residential dwelling units in Towers-3 and Tower-4 of the
real estate project developed by the Corporate Debtor. These
homebuyers collectively represent a total of 356 flats. In considering
the maintainability of the Petition, it is necessary to refer to the
threshold requirement applicable to financial creditors who are
allottees under a real estate project, as stipulated in the second
proviso to Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(IBC), which reads as follows: “Provided further that for financial
creditors who are allottees under a real estate project, an application
for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against the
corporate debtor shall be filed jointly by not less than one hundred of
such allottees under the same real estate project or not less than ten
per cent. of the total number of such allottees under the same real
estate project, whichever is less”.
This provision sets forth the minimum threshold for the filing of a
Petition under Section 7 by the allottees of a real estate project, which
must be adhered to in order to ensure that the application for
initiating corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) is not filed
frivolously.

6.2 In light of the above, this Bench, vide its order dated 20.09.2024,
issued a clarification in the matter, which is extracted below for
reference:
“Upon reviewing the submissions and perusing the documents on
record, it has come to the Court's attention that there exists an
ambiguity regarding the total number of towers and the respective
number of flats proposed for construction within the housing project

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 7 of 19
 initiated by the Corporate Debtor. This information is crucial for
determining the threshold as stipulated in Section 7 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.”

To resolve the ambiguity and to ensure that the petitioners fulfill the
requisite criteria for filing a Petition under Section 7, the Petitioners,
in compliance with the Court's direction, filed an affidavit dated
28.09.2024, attaching the sanctioned building plans of the housing
project, which comprises three towers, namely Tower-3, Tower-4, and
Tower-5. These plans provided the requisite clarity regarding the total
number of units proposed in the project, thereby aiding in
determining whether the threshold requirement was satisfied.

6.3 Upon applying the statutory threshold set forth in Section 7 of the
IBC to the present case, it is noted that there is some ambiguity
regarding the exact number of units sold by the Corporate Debtor.
However, taking a holistic approach and assuming, for the purpose
of analysis, that all the units in the aforementioned towers have been
sold, it can be deduced that the threshold, as laid down under Section
7, would require at least 36 homebuyers/allottees to file the Petition.
The Petition in question is filed by 40 allottees, which exceeds the
statutory minimum requirement. Therefore, it is clear that the
Petition is maintainable, as the requisite threshold for initiating the
insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC is satisfied.

6.4 Upon perusal of the Builder Buyer Agreements (BBAs) executed

between the Developer and the Financial Creditors, it is observed that
the Developer had committed to deliver possession of the allotted

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 8 of 19
 units to the Financial Creditors around November 2017, subject to
the specific terms and conditions of each individual agreement.
However, the delivery timeline was later revised, with the Developer
stating an amended date for possession, i.e., December 2020. Despite
this revised commitment, the Petitioners allege that the possession
has not been delivered as promised, nor has any alternative solution
been offered by the Corporate Debtor to resolve the delay.

6.5 Further, upon considering the facts of the case in their entirety, it is
apparent that a continuous cause of action arises in this matter. The
Developer has not provided possession of the residential units to the
homebuyers to date, thereby sustaining a continuing breach of the
commitments made under the Builder Buyer Agreements. This is a
matter of significant concern as it reflects an ongoing default. Our
position is further reinforced by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Lata Construction and Others v. Dr. Rameshchandra
Ramniklal Shah (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 586, wherein it was
held:

“4. A perusal of the agreement dated 23-2-1991 would show that it

was specifically stated therein that the rights under the agreement
dated 27-1-1987 would remain unaffected. It was for this reason
that in the claim petition filed before the Commission, it was clearly
mentioned that their rights under the agreement dated 27-1-1987 as
also those under the agreement dated 23-2-1991 may be enforced.
It was also specifically mentioned in the second agreement that the
first agreement of 1987 would be treated as terminated only on full
payment of the stipulated amount of Rs. 9,51,000 to the
respondents. Since the rights under the agreement of 1987 had

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 9 of 19
 not been given up and the appellants were constantly under
an obligation to provide a flat to the respondents and deliver
possession thereof to them, the commission rightly treated
“Cause of action” to be a “continuing cause of action” and
came to the right conclusion that the claim was not beyond
time.”
6.6 The Petitioners have also placed sufficient documentation on record
to substantiate their claims. These documents include a detailed list
of the Financial Creditors, showing the principal amount invested by
each, along with the corresponding dates of default. Further, copies
of the Builder Buyer Agreements (BBAs) / payment receipts / builder
ledgers reflecting the payments made by the Petitioners, and consent
letters duly signed by the Petitioners are all part of the record. These
documents collectively establish that the debt owed by the Corporate
Debtor to the Petitioners exceeds the statutory threshold of one crore
rupees, as prescribed under the IBC, and are essential for initiating
the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the
IBC.

6.7 It has come to light, through IA 2197(ND)/2024, that the Corporate

Debtor transferred development rights in Tower-5 to M/s SGN
Universal Construction Company Private Limited under a
Development Rights Agreement dated 22.02.2017. However, the
subsequent Addendum dated 15.10.2020 references the transfer of
land itself, which raises concerns about the timing and intent behind
such a provision. This late addition to the agreement, especially after
the Corporate Debtor's default in delivering possession to

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 10 of 19
 homebuyers in 2017, appears to be an afterthought, possibly aimed
at retroactively transferring land rights.

6.8 As a matter of general prudence, if the possession of the flats was to

be handed over in June 2017, when the Corporate Debtor signed the
first Development Rights Agreement on 22.02.2017, substantial
progress on construction should have been made by that time, had
everything proceeded as planned. However, it appears that no
substantial work had been completed as of 22.02.2017, and
consequently, possession could not have been transferred in June
2017. In light of this, it seems that the Corporate Debtor, unable to
fulfill its commitment to deliver possession, sought to mitigate its
liabilities by transferring the development rights of Tower-5. This
transfer could be viewed as an attempt to salvage at least a portion of
the project by retroactively adjusting its contractual obligations,
thereby raising further questions about the timing and motivations
behind such actions.

6.9 We have also taken into consideration the order of Hon’ble Delhi High
Court dated 15.03.2024 in OMP (I) (COMM) 311 of 2022, whereby the
Hon’ble Court appointed Hon'ble Justice R. Bhat (Retd.) as the sole
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties namely M/s SGN
Universal Construction Company Private Limited and the Corporate
Debtor.

6.10 We further take note of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016, which unequivocally provides that the provisions of the
IBC shall override any other conflicting law. This provision reads:

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 11 of 19
 “Section 238 - Provisions of this Code to override other laws:

The provisions of this Code shall have effect notwithstanding

anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being
in force.”

This provision is a clear and unambiguous declaration that, in the

event of any inconsistency or conflict between the provisions of the IBC
and any other law, the provisions of the IBC shall take precedence. This
overriding effect includes conflicts with other statutes, such as the
Companies Act, 2013, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act), and the SARFAESI Act
(Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002).

6.11 Several authoritative decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High
Courts have consistently affirmed the primacy of the IBC over other
statutory provisions, particularly in matters concerning insolvency
resolution and creditor rights. Some of the relevant decisions are
summarized as follows:

a) Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17:

In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the

constitutional validity of the IBC and affirmed that the provisions of the
Code supersede other laws relating to corporate insolvency. The Court
stressed the necessity of the IBC to facilitate a time-bound resolution
process and stated that the Code provides a "uniform framework" for
addressing insolvency.

b) State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan (2021) 7 SCC 170:

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 12 of 19
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the provisions of the IBC take
precedence over the provisions of other statutes that deal with the
enforcement of recovery and security interests. It stated that the resolution
process under the IBC is the primary process, and other recovery
mechanisms cannot override it.

c) Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India (2020) 9 SCC 821:

In this case, the Court reinforced the point that any provision in a law that
conflicts with the IBC will not hold precedence. The Court specifically held
that the IBC is meant to "override" any conflicting law, including the
Companies Act, 2013, when it comes to corporate insolvency.

6.12 Moreover, we note that the interim stay order passed by the Delhi High
Court specifically pertains to the Corporate Debtor and does not
constitute a stay in rem. As such, the stay order will not affect the
ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the IBC,
provided the stay does not prevent the continuation of the insolvency
proceedings. It is pertinent to observe that arbitration proceedings
cannot act as a hindrance to the IBC process. The IBC is a self-contained
code with its own mechanisms, and Section 238 of the Code explicitly
ensures that the provisions of the IBC override any other law, including
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Once insolvency proceedings
are initiated under the IBC, they take precedence over all other legal
proceedings, including any parallel arbitration proceedings.

6.13 This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in various judgments, which uphold the supremacy of the IBC over

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 13 of 19
 other dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration. Relevant
rulings in this regard include:

a) K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 16 SCC 308:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if a matter is pending
arbitration, the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) can be
initiated and continued under the IBC. Arbitration cannot hinder or stay
the process of insolvency resolution. The Court affirmed that IBC has a
distinct and independent procedure for dealing with insolvency
matters, and arbitration cannot bypass or stall the IBC process.

b) Erstwhile Surya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019)

2 SCC 386:
The Court emphasized that once the insolvency process is triggered, no
other proceeding, including arbitration, can hinder or interfere with the
resolution or liquidation process. The IBC process is meant to be time-
bound and has precedence over other recovery or dispute resolution
mechanisms like arbitration.

6.14 Based on the foregoing analysis, it is abundantly clear that the Corporate
Debtor has committed a default in failing to deliver possession of the
allotted units within the agreed timelines as stipulated in the Builder
Buyer Agreements. This constitutes a default under the provisions of the
IBC, thereby justifying the initiation of the corporate insolvency
resolution process. The documents on record, coupled with the
continuous nature of the default, leave no room for doubt that the
Petition is maintainable and that the default is both substantiated and
actionable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 14 of 19
 7. In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is ordered as follows:

7.1 The Application bearing CP IB-62(ND)/2024 filed by the

Applicant/(FC), under section 7 of the Code read with Rule 4 of the
Adjudicating Authority Rules for initiating CIRP against the Corporate
Debtor is admitted.

7.2 We also declare moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code. The

necessary consequences of imposing the moratorium flows from the
provisions of Section 14 (1) (a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Code. Thus, the
following prohibitions are imposed:
(a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or
proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any
judgment, decree or order in any court of law, Adjudicating Authority,
arbitration panel or other authority;
(b) Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the
corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial
interest therein;
(c) Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest
created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any
action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
(d)The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor, where such
property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
(e) The IB Code 2016 also prohibits Suspension or termination of any
license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar
grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government,
local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted
under any other law for the time being in force, on the grounds of
insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment
of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license,

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 15 of 19
 permit, registration, quota, concessions, clearances or a similar grant
or right during the moratorium period.

7.3 It is made clear that the provisions of moratorium shall not apply to
transactions which might be notified by the Central Government or
the supply of the essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor
as may be specified, are not to be terminated or suspended or
interrupted during the moratorium period. In addition, as per the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 which has
come into force w.e.f. 06.06.2018, the provisions of moratorium shall
not apply to the surety in a contract of guarantee to the corporate
debtor in terms of Section 14 (3)(b) of the Code.

7.4 We also declare a moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code.

The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this order
till the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or
until this Adjudicating Authority approves the Resolution Plan
under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation
of Corporate Debtor Company under Section 33 of the Insolvency &
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the case may be.

7.5 The Applicant has proposed the name of Mr. Shailendra Singh as
the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) having address: 6, Birbal
Road, Ground Floor, Jangpura Extension, South, National
Capital Territory of Delhi, 110014. His Email id is
shailendralaw@[Link]. His registration number is IBBI/IPA-
002/IP-N00471/2017-2018/11372. The Applicants have filed a
copy of the consent issued by Mr. Shailendra Singh in Form 2 and
Written Communication by proposed IRP, as per the requirement of

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 16 of 19
 Rule 9(l) of the Adjudicating Authority Rules along with the
Certificate of Registration and Authorization for Assignment in Form
B (Attached to the Application as Annexure-A1). Accordingly, Mr.
Shailendra Singh is appointed as IRP.

7.6 In pursuance of Section 13(2) of the Code, we direct the IRP to make
a public announcement immediately with regard to the admission of
this application under Section 7 of the Code. The expression
immediately means within three days as clarified by Explanation to
Regulation 6(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for
Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

7.7 During the CIRP period, the management of the Corporate Debtor
shall vest in the IRP/RP, in terms of Section 17 of the IBC. The
officers and managers of the Corporate Debtor shall provide all
documents in their possession and furnish every information in their
knowledge to the IRP within one week from the date of receipt of this
order, in default of which coercive steps will follow. There shall be
no future opportunity given in this regard.

7.8 The IRP shall perform all his functions as contemplated, interalia,
by Sections 17, 18, 20 & 21 of the Code. He is expected to take full
charge of the Corporate Debtor’s assets, and documents without any
delay whatsoever. He is also free to take police assistance and this
Court hereby directs the Police Authorities to render all assistance
as may be required by the IRP in this regard.

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 17 of 19
 7.9 The IRP or the RP, as the case may be shall submit to this
Adjudicating Authority periodical report with regard to the progress
of the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

7.10 The Financial Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakh Only) with the IRP to meet the expense to perform the
functions assigned to him in accordance with Regulation 6 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution
Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016. The needful shall
be done within one week from the date of receipt of this order by the
Financial Creditor. The amount however be subject to adjustment
by the Committee of Creditors, as accounted for by IRP and shall be
paid back to the Financial Creditor.

7.11 In terms of Section 7(7) of the Code, the Registry is hereby directed
to communicate a copy of the order to the Financial Creditor, the
Corporate Debtor, the IRP and the Registrar of Companies, NCT of
Delhi and Haryana, by Speed Post and by email, at the earliest but
not later than seven days from today.

7.12 The Registrar of Companies shall update his website by updating the
status of the Corporate Debtor and specific mention regarding
admission of this petition must be notified.

7.13 The Registry is further directed to send a copy of this order to the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) for their record.

7.14 A certified copy of this order may be issued, if applied for, upon
compliance with all requisite formalities.

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 18 of 19
 Accordingly, the present petition bearing CP No. IB 62 (ND)/2024 is
admitted.

-sd- -sd-

(DR. SANJEEV RANJAN) (MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 19 of 19
 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI, COURT - IV

IA 2197(ND)/2024 in CP No.: IB 62(ND)/2024

(Under Section 60(5) read with 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors.

…Financial Creditors / Applicants

VERSUS

M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited

…Corporate Debtor / Respondent

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s SGN Universal Construction Company Private Limited
…Applicant

VERSUS

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors.

Pronounced on: 19.11.2024

CORAM:
SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, HON’BLE
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
DR. SANJEEV RANJAN, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Present:
For Applicant : Adv. Aakashi Lodha, Adv.

For Respondent : -

IA 2197(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 1 of 3
 ORDER

PER: MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. This Application is filed under Section 60(5) read with 7

(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of
NCLT Rules, 2016 by M/s SGN Universal Construction Company Private
Limited (“Applicant”) against Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & 39 others
(“Respondents”) seeking the following against M/s Morpheus
Prodevelopers Private Limited [CIN: U70101DL2009PTC193186]
(“Corporate Debtor”):

“A. Pass an order taking on record the aforementioned facts so as to

ensure that the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal do not conflict with
the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as presently in force;

B. Pass any such further orders as this Hon'ble Adjudicating

Authority may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

2. The Corporate Debtor was incorporated on 13.08.2009, under the

Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at 1 Main Road Maujpur,
Delhi, India, 110053. Therefore, this Bench has the requisite territorial and
subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present
Application.

3. The Corporate Debtor, namely M/s. Morpheus Prodevelopers Private

Limited, is primarily engaged in the real estate and construction business.
In the year 2019, the Corporate Debtor launched a residential project
which comprises three multi-storied residential towers, namely Towers 3,
4, and 5, situated at Plot No. 2, GH-04, Sector 4, Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh.

IA 2197(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 2 of 3
 4. The Applicant further averred in the Application that the Corporate Debtor
had transferred the development rights of Tower-5 of the aforementioned
housing project to the Applicant. However, despite this transfer of rights,
the Corporate Debtor continued to sell units in Tower-5. To protect its
development rights, the Applicant filed a petition, numbered OMP (I)
(COMM) 311 of 2022, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 9
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appropriate relief.

5. Upon perusal of the documents annexed with the Application, this Bench
finds that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, by order dated 15.03.2024,
appointed Hon'ble Justice R. Bhat (Retd.) as the sole Arbitrator to resolve
the dispute between the parties.

6. This Application is taken on record and will be considered by this Bench

while dealing with the Section 7 Petition filed by Mr. Shailendra Kumar
Singh & Ors. against the respondent M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private
Limited numbered as CP IB 62(ND)/2024.

Accordingly, the present application bearing IA 2197(ND)/2024

stands disposed of.

File be consigned to records.

-sd- -sd-

(DR. SANJEEV RANJAN) (MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

IA 2197(ND)/2024
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors v/s M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Private Limited Page 3 of 3