IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 132 ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD THROUGH ITS RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL HARYANA REAL ESTATE CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate Ms. Deepal Hoda, Advocate Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Ms. K Ms. Varsha Chaudhary, Advocate ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the interim order (Annexure P-7) (Annexure P-8) (Annexure P-11 and P of 2022, by the (hereinafter referred to as ‘ deposit a penalty 2. Learned counsel for Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT’) by orders dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25740-2025 DATE OF DECISION: ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD THROUGH ITS RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL Versus HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate Ms. Deepal Hoda, Advocate Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate Ms. Komal Klana, Advocate Ms. Varsha Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed in complaint No.(Suo-Motu) 896 of 2022 in complaint No.(Suo-Motu) 1961 of 2022 11 and P-12) in complaint No.(Suo by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority hereinafter referred to as ‘HRERA’) whereby the petitioner penalty of Rs.8 lacs before the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT’) by dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) had admitted the application under HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 01.09.2025 ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD THROUGH ITS … Petitioner (s) REGULATORY AUTHORITY ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL PARMOD GOYAL for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the interim orders dated 14.05.2025 Motu) 896 of 2022, 28.05.2025 Motu) 1961 of 2022 and 26.03.2025 in complaint No.(Suo-Motu) 1997 of 2022 and 1979 Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula whereby the petitioner has been directed to before the next date of hearing. the petitioner submits that the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT’) by its had admitted the application under ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD THROUGH ITS ... Respondent(s) dated 14.05.2025 28.05.2025 and 26.03.2025 Motu) 1997 of 2022 and 1979 , Panchkula to the petitioner submits that the National its SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.08 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25740-2025 -2- Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) seeking initiation of CIRP proceedings against the petitioner-company and one Navneet Kumar Gupta had been appointed as the Resolution Professional. The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC had come into effect from the date the said order was passed, and therefore, initially it could not be represented before the HRERA but the representative of the Resolution Professional had appeared before the HRERA on 14.05.2025. He therefore, submits that as the moratorium was in place, the petitioner-company is the corporate debtor undergoing CIRP proceedings and the Resolution Professional has been appointed, the impugned orders imposing penalty and making it mandatory for the petitioner to deposit the same before the next date of hearing are unsustainable. 3. Heard. 4. It is true that the petitioner-company is undergoing CIRP proceedings and the application under Section 7 of the IBC had been admitted and a Resolution Professional had been appointed by the order of the NCLT dated 25.02.2025. Thereafter, the Resolution Professional had access to the assets of the petitioner-company. No one had appeared on behalf of the company despite issuance of several notices and the representative of the petitioner had appeared only on 14.05.2025. Penalty has been imposed on account of non- compliance of statutory provisions under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA Act’). The impugned orders are interim orders and the petitioner has been directed to deposit the penalty before the next date of hearing. The HRERA, while passing the impugned order has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court to hold that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority can impose penalties under Chapter VIII of the RERA Act. 5. The Resolution Professional is obligated to comply with the statutory requirements as set out in RERA Act. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the interim orders passed by the HRERA which would warrant interference in the matter at this stage. Moreover, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of challenging the impugned orders by preferring an appeal before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act. SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.08 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25740-2025 -3- 6. In view of the above, especially when the impugned orders are only interim orders and the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy, we do not find it appropriate to exercise the writ jurisdiction at this stage. 7. The petition stands dismissed at this stage. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 01.09.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.08 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document