Supreme Court rules NOIDA cannot charge homebuyers for developer's CIRP delays

The case concerns whether time extension charges imposed by NOIDA for project delays should be treated as Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs, which would effectively penalize homebuyers and the Resolution Applicant for the original developer's default.

Who it concerns: Appellant: The Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Private Limited (representing homebuyers); Respondent: M/s New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and others; Bench: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice B. Pardiwala.

What the court decided

• Set aside the NCLAT directions that treated time extension charges as CIRP costs.
• Modify the impugned order to remove the requirement for homebuyers/SRA to pay these charges.
• Reject NOIDA's appeal seeking to include time extension charges beyond the three-year period (up to the 10th year) as CIRP costs.
• Allow Civil Appeal No. 3132 of 2026.
• Dismiss Civil Appeal No. 4207 of 2026.
• Dispose of any pending applications.

Also in the document

• The Court held that the delay was caused by the Corporate Debtor (developer), not the homebuyers or the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
• The Court noted that NOIDA is a local authority concerned with area development and welfare, not just profit motive.
• The Court stated that penalizing homebuyers for the past sins of the developer is unjust and misconceived.
• The judgment was delivered on September 03, 2026.