Supreme Court notice lifts focus on Ansal default 2026

What the Supreme Court did on 6 April 2026

The Supreme Court on Monday, 6 April 2026, issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Genuine Homebuyers Association for Relief (GHAR), Uttar Pradesh, challenging insolvency proceedings against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd (APIL). The dispute relates to the Sushant Golf City project in Lucknow, a large housing development with significant homebuyer exposure. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard the homebuyer association and directed that the petition be tagged with the main matter involving APIL. The Court noted that parallel proceedings were already underway, including a Special Leave Petition (SLP) that had been entertained earlier in the same insolvency track.

The tagging direction matters because it aligns the homebuyers’ writ with the central case record, potentially ensuring that the Supreme Court considers homebuyer concerns in the same procedural stream as the insolvency challenge. GHAR approached the Court under Article 32, arguing that Supreme Court intervention was warranted given both the scale of the project and the existing SLP. The Court’s order at this stage is procedural, but it brings the homebuyers’ petition formally within the orbit of the ongoing top court scrutiny.

Who filed the writ and why it matters

GHAR, representing homebuyers connected to the Sushant Golf City project, told the Court the matter involves around 5,000 homebuyers. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for GHAR, argued that the Supreme Court had already engaged with the matter through an SLP arising out of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). On that basis, the homebuyers sought continued judicial oversight.

Homebuyer-driven litigation in real estate insolvency often focuses on how project delivery, possession timelines, and claim treatment interact with a company-level moratorium and creditor-led decision making. In this case, GHAR’s writ positions the homebuyers as direct petitioners before the Supreme Court, rather than only as claimants within the NCLT-supervised process.

The default at the centre: IL&FS claim of about ₹257.43 crore

The insolvency proceedings stem from an application by IL&FS Financial Services Ltd against APIL for a default of about ₹257.43 crore. The dispute concerns financing for the Sushant Golf City project in Lucknow, and the record also references two term loans of ₹150 crore extended in 2016.

According to the case history described, the loans were later restructured, but APIL defaulted despite recall notices and settlement attempts in March 2022 and November 2023. The narrative also mentions partial payments of ₹28.36 crore, but states that default continued as of 21 May 2024.

What APIL argued before the insolvency court

APIL contended that it was a solvent real estate company facing temporary liquidity issues. It also argued that initiating CIRP would adversely impact thousands of homebuyers connected to its projects. The company’s position, as recorded in the background, was aimed at resisting admission of insolvency proceedings and the consequences of a moratorium.

But under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, admission-stage scrutiny is typically confined to whether a financial debt exists and whether default has occurred. That framing shaped the insolvency court’s approach.

NCLT’s 25 February 2025 order: CIRP admitted, moratorium imposed

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, by an order dated 25 February 2025, rejected APIL’s submissions at the admission stage. The tribunal held that only the existence of debt and default is relevant at that stage, and since both were admitted and exceeded the statutory threshold, the petition was allowed.

As a result, CIRP was initiated and a moratorium was imposed. The record in the material also states that Navneet Kumar Gupta was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), with directions to make a public announcement within three days.

NCLAT’s 7 January 2026 approach: keep CIRP, narrow its scope

On appeal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 7 January 2026 noted the complexity of real estate insolvency involving multiple stakeholders. While it upheld the continuation of CIRP based on admitted debt and default, it deferred issues relating to project-wise resolution and stakeholder protection. It also restrained issuance of Form G and permitted stakeholders to file claims.

In a related description of the NCLAT outcome, the appellate tribunal confined the CIRP to specific projects linked to the securities and receivables under the loan agreements, relying on a “reverse CIRP” approach in real estate matters. The scope was stated to apply to Sushant Golf City in Lucknow and certain Rajasthan projects, including Ansal Royal Plaza, Orchid Plaza, and Tulip Plaza. Other projects in locations such as Agra, Ghaziabad, and Mohali were kept outside the insolvency process, allowing construction and possession handovers in those projects to continue under existing management.

The NCLAT also directed that the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) be added as a party to the insolvency proceedings and allowed it to file an affidavit. It also noted that UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad could pursue its application for excluding assets claimed by it from the CIRP.

Current CIRP structure across projects

APIL has said its CIRP matters are managed across different projects by separate Resolution Professionals. The Fernhill Project at District Gurgaon, Haryana, is managed by Shri Jalesh Kumar Grover, while Lucknow and Rajasthan projects are managed by Shri Navneet Kumar Gupta.

The company also stated that a newly constituted Board of Directors remains duty-bound to preserve, protect, and safeguard the company’s assets and interests until final decisions in pending cases. Separately, the material notes that the resolution plan for APIL’s Serene Residency Group Housing Project in Greater Noida was approved by the NCLT on 6 October 2025.

Fernhill CoC meeting: approved CIRP expenses and AR fees

APIL reported voting outcomes from its 50th Committee of Creditors meeting for the Fernhill Project in Gurugram, Haryana. The meeting was held virtually on 23 March 2026, and voting concluded on 27 March 2026. It approved expenses incurred during the CIRP period till 15 March 2026.

Operational expenses totaling ₹185,740 were approved, along with additional fees of ₹70,800 for the authorised representative. The Resolution Professional also provided updates on 21 ongoing litigation matters before the NCLT Delhi Bench, which were rescheduled to 27 March 2026 following early hearing applications for the Plan Approval Application.

Key facts at a glance

Market and stakeholder impact: what is clear from the record

The legal track described shows how real estate insolvency can broaden into multi-forum proceedings involving NCLT, NCLAT, and the Supreme Court, with homebuyers seeking direct relief alongside creditor claims. For homebuyers, the main immediate uncertainty typically relates to continuity of construction, timelines for possession, and how claims are processed during CIRP.

The NCLAT’s confinement of CIRP to specified projects is positioned in the material as a way to prevent disruption to unrelated developments. Separately, APIL has issued public warnings against unauthorised third parties attempting fraudulent activities in its name, advising investors to verify dealings through official channels while CIRP proceedings remain ongoing across multiple projects.

A market datapoint included in the material shows APIL at ₹3.44, up ₹0.06 (1.78%). The text does not connect this move to a specific announcement, but it indicates the stock continues to trade amid the ongoing legal and insolvency process.

What to watch next

The Supreme Court’s notice and tagging direction means the homebuyers’ writ will move alongside the main APIL matter already before the Court. On the insolvency side, the project-wise handling described, the status of plan approval applications, and the treatment of stakeholder claims remain central procedural milestones. The NCLT hearings rescheduled to 27 March 2026 for matters linked to the plan approval process, and any filings by parties such as the LDA, are also part of the case trajectory described.

The next visible step on the Supreme Court track will be the responses filed pursuant to the notice and how the tagged matters are listed alongside the main case.