Arjun, purchased an open land for ₹ 6 crore on July 15, 2020, through registered sale deed from Alpha Enterprises Ltd, seller of the property. Subsequently, development happened on that land at fast pace and buildings we

The facts of the given situation are similar to the case Galaxy Enterprise V/s Indiraben and Ors. The summary of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order is as below: NCLAT observed that - In view of facts and circumstances which has emerged from the record as well as on the basis of argument advanced by the party it is not in dispute that in respect of the open land, a registered sale deed was executed after receipt of payment of total consideration. It is also not reflected as to any question was raised that the appellant had not purchased the land in good faith, rather the transaction appears to have been done in good faith by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the: sales deed was registered on 13.07.2020 the pleading that after registration permission was obtained from competent authority for construction of the building approval of the plan and mortgaging of the land for obtaining loan thereafter almost completion of the project by way construction of above 302 units creations of 3rd party right since 61 person had already purchased the unit and NOC for another 14 purchasers from the Bank was received. In such a situation, it was not permissible for the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to pass an order affecting the right of the appellant as well as the persons who were neither arrayed as party in petition before NCLT nor they noticed. On perusal of the language of the interim relief order, it is evident that the applicant was under impression as if some construction on land was going to be done by the applicant herein whereas facts noticed hereinabove makes it clear that construction over the land was almost complete and some of the third party right was also created. Such circumstances are sufficient to draw an inference that balance of convenience was completely against the applicant and in absence of balance of convenience of the learned, NCLT has committed an error in passing the order of status quo restraining appellant from either creating any 3rd party right or carrying any construction work. If we allow status quo order to continue, there is every possibility of irreparable loss to the appellant and also some other proposed purchasers who has entered into agreement for purchasing the units in the premises in question which has been constructed over the land. Hence, we are of the opinion that the fact and circumstances that impugned order is here by set aside. Hence, the appeal stands allowed. In view of the above, it can be said that appeal by Arjun before NCLAT would be allowed.