Case: MANISH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

of being understood in the manner done. 366. In regard to the first and the second provisos, they have only prospective operation. The creditors covered by these provisos, are not subjected to any time limit (except, no doubt, the bar under Article 137 of the Limitation Act), in the matter of garnering the requisite support. However, prescribing a time limit in regard to pending applications, cannot be, per se, described as arbitrary, as otherwise, it would be an endless and uncertain procedure. The applications would remain part of the docket and also become a Damocles Sword overhanging the debtor and the other stakeholders with deleterious consequences also qua the objects of the Code. 367. Finally, the actual time provided. Is it manifestly unfair? Would not six weeks, two months or even more lengthier periods, be more fair? Undoubtedly, it would be, from the point of view of the applicants. Another way to approach the problem is, was it impossible for the creditor/creditors to seek information, get into touch with the other creditors and persuade them to join him/them. As far as court fees is concerned, there is no extra liability as the amount remains the same, viz., Rs.25,000/-, irrespective of the number of applicants. If the condition in the third proviso was impossible to comply with, then, it would also be manifestly arbitrary. As far as availability of information is concerned, be it the mechanism of an Association of Allottees contemplated under the RERA or the requirement under the said Act to post details of the allotment, at least, in law, the Legislature was not making a capricious command. So also, is the case with the creditors covered by the first proviso, having regard to the clear requirement of Section 88 of the Companies Act, 2013. There are registers, which can be perused and information gathered. 368. Another aspect of the matter is, if there is insolvency and it affects creditors, ordinarily, self- interest would guide them into following the best course available to them. We have also seen the presence of plural remedies. No doubt, calculation of one-tenth in a case, may, undoubtedly, require the quantification of total number of creditors. This would be necessary, no doubt, only if hundred creditors cannot be found to support the application. 369. We have noted the consequences of the deemed withdrawal, the nature of the right, the Explanation to Section 7, the objects of the Code, the factual matrix reflecting a ten-fold increase in the applications, the pressure on the dockets of the bodies, which are charged with the imperative duty to deal with matters with the highest speed, the impact on similar stakeholders in the category and the sheer largeness of the class of creditors. The period could have been more fair to the petitioners by being longer but that is where we must bear in mind, the limits of our jurisdiction. Where would the Court draw the line? We find it difficult to hold that within the time limit of 30 days it is impossible to comply with the requirements. 370. We have dealt with the aspect relating to the impact of the statutory withdrawal of the application. Secondly, we must also bear in mind that the Code was enacted in the year 2016. The period of the retrospective operation, would appear to be, spread over for a period of two years and for the most part, it relates to a period of one year. We have already found that the withdrawal under the third proviso, will not stand in the way of the applicant, invoking the same default and filing the application and even the principle of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC will not apply and will not bar such application. As far as limitation is concerned, we have explained as to what is to be the impact. The nature of the vested right and the impact of the law, the public interest, the sublime objects, which would be fulfilled, would, in the facts of this case, constrain us from interfering, even though, this Court may have a different view about the period of time, which is allowed to the applicant. 371. Lastly, there remains a question of court fees. As far as court fees is concerned, it is true that in the circumstances of the case, there is compelled withdrawal of the applications. The other side of the picture is, even, according to the petitioners, the applications engaged the Adjudicating Authority and time was spent on the applications. In the circumstances of these cases, we would resort to our power under Article 142 of the Constitution to order as follows. We would direct that in case applications are moved by the applicants, who are petitioner before us, in regard to the very same corporate debtor, in the same real estate project, as far as allottees are concerned, the applicants shall be exempted from the requirement of paying court fee. This would obviously be a one-time affair. We, however, further make it clear that exemption from paying court fee, in the case of joint applicants, will be limited only to once, to a single application in future, in relation to the same subject matter, as per the application. To make it clear, in a case where there are more than one applicants in the pending application in respect of real estate project, if they combine in future application, they would stand exempted. Secondly, in case, any of the applicants, if they were to move jointly with the requisite number under the second proviso, the exemption will be limited only to once. Meaning thereby, if exemption has been availed of by any one out of the joint applicants, in conjunction with others, then, the other joint applicants cannot claim exemption. If there are any applicants, falling under the first proviso, and who are among the petitioners, in regard to the same corporate debtor, they would also be entitled to the exemption from payment of the court fee. RELIEF

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]47. The grounds on which plenary law can be challenged are well established. In the first two decades decisions of this Court unerringly point to three grounds which render legislation vulnerable. A law can be successfully challenged if contrary to the division of powers, either the Parliament or the State Legislature usurps power that does not fall within its domain thus, rendering it incompetent to make such law. Secondly, a law made contravening Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India would be visited with unconstitutionality and declared void to the extent of its contravention. Needless to say, a law within the meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution would remain valid qua a non-citizen (see in this regard The State of Gujarat and others v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad and Others (1974) 4 SCC 656 ). Thirdly, apart from Fundamental Rights, the supremacy of the Constitution vis-a-vis the ordinary legislation, even when the law is plenary legislation, is preserved with a view that legislation must be in conformity with the other provisions of the Constitution.49. The seed of this idea had a muted growth. It was in the decision of this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3  that this Court laid bare a new dimension in the majestic provisions of Article 14. This Court took the view that arbitrariness and fairness are sworn enemies. The guarantee of Article 14 is not confined in other words to it being a prohibition against equals being discriminated against or unequals being treated alike. State action must be fair and not arbitrary if it is to be pass muster in a court of law. It is essentially following the dicta laid down as aforesaid that this Court in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 , wherein one of us (Justice Rohinton F. Nariman), speaking for the majority, held as follows:101. It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 121] stated that it was settled law that subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation. This being the case, there is no rational distinction between the two types of legislation when it comes to this ground of challenge under Article 14. The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.Such an argument is nothing but a thinly disguised attempt at questioning the law of the Legislature based on malice. A law is made by a body of elected representatives of the people. When they act in their legislative capacity, what is being rolled out is ordinary law. Should the same legislators sit to amend the Constitution, they would be acting as members of the Constituent Assembly. Whether it is ordinary legislation or an amendment to the Constitution, the activity is one of making the law. While malice may furnish a ground in an appropriate case to veto administrative action it is trite that malice does not furnish a ground to attack a plenary law [See in this regard K. Nagaraj and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (1985) 1 SCC 523  and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Narain Singh (2009) 13 SCC 165 ].57. The three impugned provisos which we have already noted and which have been inserted vide the impugned amendment have been sandwitched in between the provisions of sub-section (1) and the explanation. Sub- section 2 of Section 7 provides that the financial creditor shall make the application which shall be in such manner and form and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.65. Section 8 read with Section 9 deal with application for initiation of the CIRP by an operational creditor. Section 10 deals with an application by the corporate applicant. The word Corporate applicant is defined to refer to the corporate debtor and other entities associated with it. More about it at a later stage. It is thereafter that law giver has in Section 11 proscribed applications which should otherwise be maintainable. This is a provision in which we will devote more time later on in this judgement. Section 12 places the time limit.66. Coming to sub-Section 2, the CIRP is to be completed within 180 days from the date of admission of the application to initiate the process. As far as an application by a financial creditor is concerned, the date of admission is the date of the order admitting the application. Under sub-Section (2) however if the Committee of creditors by a vote of 66 per cent of the voting share instructs the RP to extend the period of CIRP beyond 180 days, the RP is bound to file an application. The adjudicating authority on receipt of the application can extend the period of 180 days for a maximum period of 90 days. Such extension can be granted only once. With effect from 16.8.2019, two provisos have been inserted. The provisos were added in fact as noted in paragraph-74 of the Essar Steel(supra)to overcome what was laid down in (2019) 2 SCC 1 decided by this Court 04.10.2018. In the latter decision in Arcellormittal(supra), this Court purported to hold that the time taken in legal proceedings must be excluded. Under the first proviso, the CIRP has to be mandatorily completed within a period of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date. This period of 330 days is to include any extension granted under sub-Section (3) by the Adjudicating Authority and also the time taken in legal proceedings in relation to the resolution process of the corporate debtor. However, in Committee Creditors of Essar Steel (supra), this Court struck down the word mandatorily as being manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Article 19 (1)(g) and proceeded to hold as follows:…The effect of this declaration is that ordinarily the time taken in relation to the corporate resolution process of the corporate debtor must be completed within the outer limit of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date, including extensions and the time taken in legal proceedings. However, on the facts of a given case, if it can be shown to the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal under the Code that only a short period is left for completion of the insolvency resolution process beyond 330 days, and that it would be in the interest of all stakeholders that the corporate 10-12- 2020 (Page 69 of 85) debtor be put back on its feet instead of being sent into liquidation and that the time taken in legal proceedings is largely due to factors owing to which the fault cannot be ascribed to the litigants before the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal, the delay or a large part thereof being attributable to the tardy process of the Adjudicating Authority and/or the Appellate Tribunal itself, it may be open in such cases for the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal to extend time beyond 330 days. Likewise, even under the newly added proviso to Section 12, if by reason of all the aforesaid factors the grace period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Amending Act of 2019 is exceeded, there again a discretion can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal to further extend time keeping the aforesaid parameters in mind. It is only in such exceptional cases that time can be extended, the general Rule being that 330 days is the outer limit within which resolution of the stressed assets of the corporate debtor must take place beyond which the corporate debtor is to be driven into liquidation.68. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the scheme appears to be that the name of the RP to act as the IRP is to be indicated in the application. While admitting the application under Section 7(5), the adjudicating authority is to appoint the proposed resolution professional. In fact, Section 16(2) of the Code contemplates such appointment. We may refer to Section 12A which was inserted with effect from 6.6.2018. Section 12A reads as follows:12A. Withdrawal of application admitted under section 7, 9 or 10. – The Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of application admitted under section 7 or section 9 or section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of ninety per cent voting share of the committee of creditors, in such manner as may be specified.69. The above provision dealing with withdrawal of application after admission may be contrasted with Rule (8) which apparently deals with withdrawal before admission.70. Section 16 of the Code, however, indicates that the adjudicating authority shall appoint an interim resolution professional within 14 days from the insolvency commencement date. We have already noted the definition of the words insolvency commencement date as the date of admission. Section 13 contemplates steps to be taken upon admission under Section 7, inter alia.1.A moratorium contemplated under Section 14 is to be declared.2.A Public announcement of the initiation of the CIRP and inviting claims against the corporate debtor is to be made.3. The appointment of the IRP- the appointment is to be done in the manner as provided in Section 16. The announcement is to be made immediately after the appointment of resolution professional.72. It will be noticed that while Section 6 read with Section 7 contemplates that a financial creditor may move the application individually, he may also move the application jointly with other financial creditors. Even if a single financial creditor was to be the applicant, after the appointment of the interim resolution professional, the applicant ceases to be in seisin of the lis.73. Section 17 contemplates that the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor will vest with the IRP. This takes effect from the date of the appointment of the interim resolution professional. Furthermore, the powers of the Board of Directors who are partners of the corporate debtors shall stand suspended.74. Virtually, the entire control of the management including all the acts and authority indicated in sub-section 2 is to be carried out by interim resolution professional and authority exercised by him.96. A perusal of Section 88 reveals, on the one hand, that the provisions of the RERA, are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. At the same time, Section 89 provides that the RERA will prevail over any other inconsistent law. The result is that while all cognate laws, which are not inconsistent with RERA will continue to operate within their own sphere, the provisions, which are, however, inconsistent with RERA, will not survive after RERA has come into force.118. Therefore, a conspectus of the provisions would show that having regard to the legislative intention the term allottees as defined in Section 2(d) must be understood undoubtedly on its own terms predominantly. But at the same time the other provisions which form part of the Act and therefore the scheme must also be borne in mind. The Argument that the definition of allottee suffers from over inclusiveness and under inclusiveness needs to be considered. Under inclusiveness and over inclusiveness are aspects of the guarantee under Article 14. Equals must be treated equally. Unequals must not be treated equally. What constitutes reasonable classification must depend upon the facts of each case, the context provided by the statute, the existence of intelligible differentia which has led to the grouping of the persons or things as a class and the leaving out of those who do not share the intelligible differentia. No doubt it must bear rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.119. Coming to the definition of the word allottee it appears to be split up into three categories broadly, they are- plot, apartment and buildings. In the context of the impugned proviso, it must be remembered that if an applicant is able to garner a magical figure of 100 allottees, then he can present the application under Section 7 of the Code. This is for the reason that the further requirement of one-tenth of total number of allottees is meant to apply in a situation only if one- tenth of the total number of allottees is less than 100. This is for the reason that the word whichever has been used. No doubt in the context of one-tenth of the allottees, the greater the number of total number of allottees, the greater will be the number of one-tenth. In other words, if the total number of allottees is less, then, one-tenth of the total number will be less, and if in such circumstances, it is lesser than hundred, such number of allottees can make application under Section 7 under the impugned provisos. Therefore, in calculating the total number of allottees in one sense is a double-edged sword as the more is the numerator, the more will be the resultant figure required under the proviso.120. Be that as it may, as we have noticed the question must be decided with reference to real nature of the real estate project in which the applicant is an allottee. If it is in the case of an apartment, then necessarily all persons to whom allotment had been made would be treated as allottees for calculating the figure mentioned in the impugned proviso. The word allotment does mean allotment in the sense of documented booking as is mentioned in Section 11(1)(b) in regard to apartment or plot with which we are largely concerned. Such detail regarding the quarterly up-to- date list of the number and the types of apartments are to be uploaded as provided in Section 11. It is this information incidentally, which is the reservoir of data which the legislature intends that the allottees can use even though it is not necessarily confined to them. The allottee would also include a person who acquires the allotment either through sale, transfer or otherwise. The transferee of the allotment is contemplated. There can be no difficulty in including such assignee of the allotment as also the allottee for the purpose of complying with the threshold requirement under the impugned proviso. Thus, all allottees and all assignees of allotment would qualify both to be considered for the purpose of calculating the total number of allottees but confined to the particular real estate project and therefore for arriving at the figure of 100 allottees or one-tenth of the allottees as the case may be. Then, there is a third category, which is introduced by the expression sold (whether as leasehold or freehold or otherwise transferred by the Promoter). Here a question may arise, if the word sold is applied to the expression plot, then undoubtedly the transferee would be an allottee. If the sale is to the allottee in a real estate project which is a hybrid project consisting of development of land into plots and also development of buildings as is contemplated under Section 2(zk) then the transferee of the plot undoubtedly would be an allottee. He may have a complaint regarding the default by the promoter in the matter of development of the plot under hybrid project. As far as sale whether freehold or leasehold of an apartment or a building is concerned, once an apartment or building is sold, it presupposes that the construction of the building or the apartment is complete ordinarily. No doubt, he may also have complaints against the promoter which may be addressed under the RERA. For the purpose of the proviso in question, going by the definition, undoubtedly, such transferee of an apartment or building, is to be treated as an allottee. Let us take an example. A Promoter constructs several apartments. An apartment is defined so as to include flat. It can be residential or commercial. Assume that the Promoter has constructed and completed construction, five out of the fifteen floors (which constitutes the project), on the basis of the occupation certificate, as different from the completion certificate, as the latter certificate is given only on the completion of the project. He assigns and transfers the apartment to those allottees to whom he allotted the apartment when he has completed the construction. Such transferees would be allottees under the RERA. The question, however, may arise from the point of view of the impugned proviso as to what is the common feature between such an allottee to whom the constructed apartment is already handed over after sale and the allottee of the remaining floors where there is no construction or only construction which is pronouncedly lagging behind the schedule. The question may arise whether banding together such allottees under the definition clause make out the case of over inclusive classification. Are unequals being treated equally?121. A mere charge of either under inclusiveness or over inclusiveness which is not difficult to make hardly suffices to persuade the court to strike down a law. There is a wide latitude allowed in the legislature in these matters. The examination cannot be extended to find out whether there is mathematical precision or wooden equality established. The working of the statute may produce further issues, all of it may not be fully perceived as which may not be wholly foreseen by the law giver. The freedom to experiment must be conceded to the legislature, particularly, in economic laws. If problems emerge in the working of law and which require legislative intervention, the court cannot be oblivious to the power of the legislative to respond by stepping in with necessary amendment. There is nothing like a perfect law and as with all human institutions there are bound to be imperfections. What is significant is however for the court ruling on constitutionality, the law must present a clear departure from constitutional limits.123. We have noticed Section 11 (1) (b) of RERA. It contemplates details of booking qua apartments and plots. This is sufficient to reject the argument that it could be based on a total number of the units promised. What is required is allotment and not promised flats as per a brochure. It is also not the total constructed units. This is as what is relevant under the impugned provisos read with Section 5(8)(f) explanation and section 2 (d) of RERA read with Section 11(1)(b) and the rules made thereunder is the booking of apartments or plots. What is allotted or booked may be more than what is constructed if there is a mismatch at any given point of time. It is the number of units allotted. Now, the allotment and the agreement to sell are not irreconcilable with each other and may signify the same.124. The further contention that 10 percent is dynamic and what is 1/10 in the morning may fall short by night if more allotment is made, is untenable in law. The provisions of the Companies Act, 1913 (Section 153-C), Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 contain similar provisions. The mere difficulties in given cases, to comply with a law can hardly furnish a ground to strike it down. As to what would constitute the real estate project, it must depend on the terms & conditions and scope of a particular real estate project in which allottees are a part of. These are factual matters to be considered in the facts of each case.130. The Explanation makes it clear that a financial debt, which is owed to any other financial creditor of the corporate debtor would suffice to make an application on the basis that the default has occurred.131. Interpreting these provisions and the Rules as well, this Court in Innoventive (supra), held as follows:28. When it comes to a financial creditor triggering the process, Section 7 becomes relevant. Under the Explanation to Section 7(1), a default is in respect of a financial debt owed to any financial creditor of the corporate debtor — it need not be a debt owed to the applicant financial creditor. Under Section 7(2), an application is to be made under sub- section (1) in such form and manner as is prescribed, which takes us to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. Under Rule 4, the application is made by a financial creditor in Form 1 accompanied by documents and records required therein. Form 1 is a detailed form in 5 parts, which requires particulars of the applicant in Part I, particulars of the corporate debtor in Part II, particulars of the proposed interim resolution professional in Part III, particulars of the financial debt in Part IV and documents, records and evidence of default in Part V. Under Rule 4(3), the applicant is to dispatch a copy of the application filed with the adjudicating authority by registered post or speed post to the registered office of the corporate debtor. The speed, within which the adjudicating authority is to ascertain the existence of a default from the records of the information utility or on the basis of evidence furnished by the financial creditor, is important. This it must do within 14 days of the receipt of the application. It is at the stage of Section 7(5), where the adjudicating authority is to be satisfied that a default has occurred, that the corporate debtor is entitled to point out that a default has not occurred in the sense that the debt, which may also include a disputed claim, is not due. A debt may not be due if it is not payable in law or in fact. The moment the adjudicating authority is satisfied that a default has occurred, the application must be admitted unless it is incomplete, in which case it may give notice to the applicant to rectify the defect within 7 days of receipt of a notice from the adjudicating authority. Under sub-section (7), the adjudicating authority shall then communicate the order passed to the financial creditor and corporate debtor within 7 days of admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be.132. It is true that Section 238A (inserted with effect from 06.06.2018) of the Code provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall be applicable as far as may be to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority and the NCLAT, as the case may be, inter alia. Interpreting this provision, inter alia, this Court in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited (supra), has held that Article 137 in Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963, will apply in regard to an application under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code. This Court held, inter alia, as follows:42. It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. The right to sue, therefore, accrues when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except in those cases where, in the facts of the case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to condone the delay in filing such application.133. In fact, the Court, in the said case, in the course of its judgment, gives an example of a debt which is due since 1990 and which has become barred but which is sought to be revived through the medium of Section 7 of the Code which law came into being in 2016. It is to avoid such situations that this Court noted that even if Section 238A was inserted after the original enactment, the Limitation Act, 1963, would, indeed apply, right from the inception of the Code. It is to be noticed that this Court has applied Article 137, and also, at the same time, countenanced the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, providing for condonation of delay in appropriate cases.134. It is, therefore, clear that the requirement of the Code in regard to an application by a financial creditor does not mandate that the financial debt is owed to the applicant in terms of the Explanation. This is for the reason that apparently that the CIRP and which, if unsuccessful, is followed by the liquidation procedure is in all a proceeding, in rem. The Law Giver has envisaged in the Code, an action, merely for setting in motion the process initially. The litmus test on the anvil of which, the Adjudicating Authority will scrutinize the matter, is only the existence of the default, as defined in Section 4 of the Code. As on date, the amount of default is pegged at Rs.1 crore. Present a financial debt which has not been paid, the doors are thrown open for the processes under the Code to flow in and overwhelm the corporate debtor. The further barrier is limitation, no doubt, as noticed in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v. Parag Gupta & Associates (2019) 11 SCC 633. As with anything in life, not only will imperfections stand out and mathematical nicety be flouted, a law may end up seemingly trampling upon the interests of a few or even many. Since, the Code undoubtedly bears the brand of an economic measure upon its face, and in true spirit, being one of the most significant and dynamic economic experiments indulged in by the Law Giver, not by becoming servile to Parliament, but by way of time hallowed deference to the sovereign body experimenting in such matters, this Court will lean heavily in favour of such a law. The complaint of the petitioners that an increase in the required strength of applicants, will create legal knots which do not admit of solution, do not appeal to us and we intend lay bare how the law can indeed be worked, even with the extra burden which is cast on the persons covered by the provisos.135. It is indisputable that in order to successfully move an application under Section 7 that there must be a default which must be in a sum of Rs.1 crore. It is equally clear that the amount of Rs.1 crore need not be owed by the corporate debtor in favour of the applicant. It must be noted that the Explanation existed even prior to the provisos being inserted. It is open to a financial creditor, to move an application in the company of another financial creditor or more than one other financial creditor. In fact, a perusal of the Rules, which we have already extracted, would indicate that irrespective of the number of applicants the Court Fee would remain Rs. 25,000/-. This answers the alleged vagueness about court fees where the provisos are given effect to. Thus, dehors the impugned provisos in terms of the Explanation in sub-Section 7(1), a financial debt need not be owed to the applicant and as joint application by more than one applicant was and is contemplated, the resultant position would be that any number of applicants, without any amount being due to them, could move an application under Section 7, provided that they are financial creditors and there is a default in a sum of Rs.1 crore even if the said amount is owed to none of the applicants but to any another financial creditor. This position has not undergone any change even with the insertion of the provisos. In other words, even though the provisos require that in the case of a real estate project, being conducted by a corporate debtor, an application can be filed by either one hundred allottees or allottees constituting one-tenth of the allottees, whichever is less, if they are able to establish a default in regard to a financial creditor and it is not necessary that there must be default qua any of the applicants. We have taken an extreme example to illustrate how the Code can possibly be worked.136. In practice, it may be unlikely, however, that persons would come together as applicants under the Code, if they are real estate allottees, particularly knowing what the admission of application under Section 7 entails, and the destiny of an application which has reached the stage of compulsory winding up under Section 33. However, taking a more likely example, viz., of the corporate debtor operating in the real estate sector and an allottee moving an application upon there being amounts due to him, prior to the amendment, undoubtedly, a single allottee could set the ball in motion and all he had to satisfy is default to him or any other financial creditor. The change that is brought about is only that apart from establishing the factum of default, he must present the application endorsed by the requisite number introduced by the proviso. Since, default can be qua any of the applicants, and even a person, who is not an applicant, and the action is, one which is understood to be in rem, in that, the procedures, under the Code, would bind the entire set of stakeholders, including the whole of the allottees, we can see no merit in the contention of the petitioner based on the theory of default, rendering the provisions unworkable and arbitrary.137. In this regard, it is necessary to notice Form 1, in which, an application is to be maintained under Section 7 of the Code read with Rule 4 of the Rules. In the said Form, in Part IV, there are two columns. The first column is total amount of debt granted, dates of disbursement. Under the second column in Part IV, the applicant must show the amount claimed to be in default and the date on which the default occurred (the applicant is required to attach the workings for computation of the amount and days of default in tabular form). Part V deals with particulars of the financial debt (documents, records and evidence of default). The applicant is called upon to attach copy of record of default with information utility, if any. The applicant may attach list of any other document to prove the existence of the default, as can be seen from clause 8 of Part V.In the very first place, we must notice that as far as the workability of this provision in such a situation is looked at, it cannot be called into question, having regard to one aspect in particular. Even before the amendment, and what is more also, after the amendment, a joint application is permissible (though not mandated) in respect of all classes of financial creditors. This means, even in the case of any application filed by more than one applicant, if the requirements of the Code are otherwise fulfilled, there can be cases where the applicants can file a single application by giving the details which we have adverted to. Secondly, we must bear in mind again, that the application is contemplated to be an application in rem. One or more financial creditors activises the Code with reference to the threshold figure of Rs.1 crore, being in default. The Authority is alerted. He verifies this aspect, finding that the debt is established under Section 7(5), and further that it is not barred by limitation or if he invokes the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay [as contemplated in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited (supra)], the curtains are raised for the Code to be applied since the default in the sum may be owed to any financial creditor. It suffices that the said sum can be claimed as a sum in default in terms of the Explanation in Section 7(1). Undoubtedly, the record of default, as contemplated in the Code, which need not be the record of default with the information utility alone, has to be furnished. If the default is qua all the applicants, then also, as long as the statutory requirements regarding the amount, and it not being barred, are fulfilled, it will be open to the applicants to plead the same. Undoubtedly, if the debt, in a sum of Rs.1 crore, happens to be set up, which is barred, then, unless Section 5 of the Limitation Act is successfully invoked, the applicants would risk rejection of the application, which cannot be stated to be unfair as it is in accordance with law. What we are indicating is that in view of the special provision, contained in the Explanation to Section 7(1), the arguments appear to be farfetched. We must bear in mind that when we reasonably contemplate, a state of insolvency, while in law, the corporate debtor, being in default to a single financial creditor in a sum of Rs. 1 crore, is sufficient, it is highly unlikely that the corporate debtor would not be similarly financially in dire straits towards the other creditors (allottees). Another aspect, which is raised, is that in the example of a hundred allottees, if they have agreements, under which, the date of default is different, how is the application to be drafted and processed? What, if the debt is barred qua some of the applicants, whereas, it is not so in regard to the other applicants. Taking a cue from the Explanation to Section 7(1), all that would be required is, to plead the default, no doubt, in the sum of Rs. 1 crore, which is not barred as the cause of action. In other words, if a law contemplates that the default in a sum of Rs.1 crore can be towards any financial creditor, even if he is not an applicant, the fact that the debt is barred as against some of the financial creditors, who are applicants, whereas, the application by some others, or even one who have moved jointly, fulfill the requirement of default, both in terms of the sum and it not being barred, the application would still lie.139. We have referred to the definition of the word allotee in Section 2(d) of the RERA. In regard to a real estate project, all persons, who are treated as allottees, as per the definition of allottee would be entitled to be treated as allottees, for the purpose of Section 5(8)(f) (Explanation) and also, for the purpose of the impugned provisos. All that is required is that the allottees must relate to same real estate project. In other words, if a Promoter has a different real estate project, be it in relation to apartments, in the case an application under Section7, those would not be reckoned in computing one-tenth as well as the total allotments.140. The rationale behind, confining allottees to the same real estate project, is to promote the object of the Code. Once the threshold requirement can pass muster when tested in the anvil of a challenge based on Articles 14, 19 and 21, then, there is both logic and reason behind the legislative value judgment that the allottees, who must join the application under the impugned provisos, must be related to the same real estate project. The connection with the same real estate project is crucial to the determination of the critical mass, which Legislature has in mind, as a part of its scheme, to streamline the working of the Code. If it is to embrace the total number of allottees of all projects, which a Promoter of a real estate project, may be having, in one sense, it will make the task of the applicant himself, more cumbersome. It becomes a sword, which will cut both ways. This is for the reason that the complaints, relating to different projects, may be different. With regard to one project of a Promoter of real estate project, maybe, in the advanced stage, the allottees in a particular project, may not have much of a complaint. The complaint, in relation to yet another project, may be more serious. If the complaint in respect of the latter, attracts the attention of a critical mass of allottees, and the proposed applicant is part of that project in the said project, then, it may be easier for the allottees to fulfil the statutory mantra in the impugned provisos, with the junction of likeminded souls. If, on the other hand, the requirement was to make a search for allottees of different projects, as would be the case, if the entirety of the allottees, under different projects, were to be reckoned, the task would have been much more cumbersome. The requirement of the allottees, being drawn from the same project, stands to reason and also does not suffer from any constitutional blemish, as pointed out.There can be no doubt that the requirement of a threshold under the impugned proviso, in Section 7(1), must be fulfilled as on the date of the filing of the application. In this regard, we find support from an early judgment of this Court, which was rendered under Section 153-C of the Companies Act, 1913. Section 153-C is the predecessor to Sections 397 and 398 read with Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. Its most recent avatar is contained in Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 244. In fact, Section 399 (3) of the Companies Act, 1956, read as follows:399(3) Where any members of a company are entitled to make an application in virtue of sub-section (1), any one or more of them having obtained the consent in writing of the rest, may make the application on behalf and for the benefit of all of them.142. In the decision of this Court in Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. A. Nageshwara Rao and others AIR 1956 SC 213 , the provision in question, viz., Section 153-C of Companies Act, 1913 dealt with the power of the Court to Act, when the Company acts in a prejudicial manner or oppresses any part of its members. It, inter alia, provided that no application could be made by any member, in the case of a company having a share capital unless the member has obtained consent, in writing, of not less than one hundred in number of the members of the company or not less than one-tenth in number of the members, whichever is less. There was also an alternate requirement, to which, resort could be made in regard to company, not having share capital. There was another mode of fulfilling the threshold requirement. In the facts of the said case, the number of the members of the company were 603. Sixty-five members consented to the application. The problem, however, arose as it was contended that 13 of the members who had consented, had, subsequent to the presentation of the application, withdrawn their consent. This Court went on to hold as follows:5 xxx xxx xxxWe have no hesitation in rejecting this contention. The validity of a petition must be judged on the facts as they were at the time of its presentation, and a petition which was valid when presented cannot, in the absence of a provision to that effect in the statute, cease to be maintainable by reason of events subsequent to its presentation. In our opinion, the withdrawal of consent by 13 of the members, even if true, cannot affect either the right of the applicant to proceed with the application or the jurisdiction of the court to dispose of it on its own merits.143. In the matter of presentation of an application under Section 7, if the threshold requirement, under the impugned provisos, stands fulfilled, the requirement of the law must be treated as fulfilled. The contention, relating to the ambiguity and consequent unworkability and the resultant arbitrariness, is clearly untenable and does not appeal to us. If an allottee is able to, in other words, satisfy the requirements, as on the date of the presentation, the requirement of the impugned law is fulfilled.It is vague. It is arbitrary. It is true that in the impugned proviso, introduced in Section 7(1), there is no indication as to how the number of allottees are to be reckoned in the case of more than one person. It will be of interest to note that in Section 14 of the RERA, the Promoter is forbidden from making any additions and alterations in the sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications, the nature of the fixtures, fittings and amenities, which are agreed to be undertaken, without the consent of that person. Of course, minor additions or alterations, in circumstances provided in the proviso, can be carried out.145. Thereafter, Section 14(2)(ii) contemplates that any other alterations in the sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications or the common area within the project, cannot be carried out except with the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, other than the Promoter, who had agreed to take the apartments in such building. In this context, there is an Explanation. The Explanation purports to declare that if an allottee has taken more than one apartment or plot in his name or in the name of his association of individuals, bookings in its name or in the name of associated entities or related enterprises, are to be treated as a single allotment.146. Similarly, Section 15 of RERA interdicts transfer or assignment of his majority rights and liabilities to a third party, without obtaining the prior written consent of two-thirds of the allottees and also without the prior written approval of the Authority. A similar Explanation, as is found in Section 14, which we have already described, is to be found in Section 15. Such an Explanation is, however, not found in the definition of allottee in Section 2(d) of RERA. The object of the Explanation, both in Sections 14 and 15, is apparent. It is to avoid defeating the object, which would occur, if members of the same family, monopolises a project or associated and related concerns of a company, firm or association, corner the allotments. It is also possible that they may be hand-in-glove with the Promoter, which would result in defeating the rights of the other allottees, as the figure of two- thirds, would cease to represent the interest of the actual two-third majority, which is intended by the Legislature, be it in a matter or alterations or additions in the sanctioned plans or layout plans, etc., or in the matter of the Promoter getting out of the project in regard to his majority rights, by transfer or assignment. These Explanations are intended to hold the Promoter responsible to the sanctioned plans as also to prevent the Promoter from wriggling out of his majority rights, without a real majority, as would be represented by two-thirds of the separate allottees, agreeing to the same. We cannot read the Explanations in Sections 14 and 15 into the definition of allotee in Section 2(d), as, in Sections 14 and 15, a perusal of Explanations, makes it clear that they are enacted for the purpose of Sections 14 and 15, respectively. We would have to take the definition of the allottee from Section 2(d), as it is. Therefore, it does not matter whether a person has one or more allotments in his name or in the name of his family members. As long as there are independent allotments made to him or his family members, all of them would qualify as separate allottees and they would count both in the calculation of the total allotments, as also in reckoning the figure of hundred allottees or one-tenth of the allottees, whichever is less.147. As far as the situation projected about, there being no clarity regarding whether, if there is a joint allotment of an apartment to more than one person, is it to be taken as only one allottee or as many allottees as there are joint allottees, it would appear to us, on a proper understanding of the definition of the word allottee in Section 2(d) and the object, for which the requirement of hundred allottees or one-tenth has been put, and also, not being oblivious to Section 399(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, as also the Explanation in Section 244(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, in the case of a joint allotment of an apartment, plot or a building to more than one person, the allotment can only be treated as a single allotment. This for the reason that the object of the Statute, admittedly, is to ensure that there is a critical mass of persons (allottees), who agree that the time is ripe to invoke the Code and to submit to the inexorable processes under the Code, with all its attendant perils. The object of maintaining speed in the CIRP and also the balancing of interest of all the stakeholders, would be promoted by the view that as in the case of the Companies Acts, 1956 and 2013, that for the purpose of complying with the impugned provisos in Section 7(1), while the allottee can be of any of the categories, fulfilling the description of an allottee in Section 2(d) of RERA, as interpreted earlier by us joint allottees of a single apartment, will be treated as only one allottee. Any other view can lead to clear abuse and defeating of the object of the Code. If, for instance, a single apartment is taken in the name of hundred persons, a single allottee, who in turn comprise of relatives or family members or friends, can move an application, even though the position ante would be restored, which means that only the allottee qua one apartment, plot or building, is before the Authority and it would not really represent a critical mass of the allottees in the real estate project concerned. Therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contentions of the petitioner on having made the said interpretation.150. We are called upon to pronounce on the constitutionality of the law. Having regard to the salutary object and the distinguishing features, which clearly distinguish the allottees and also the creditors falling in the first proviso from the other creditors, both financial and operational, we see no merit in the contention. It is another matter that we may entertain the belief that it would have been more wise on the part of the Legislature to have incorporated a safety valve to provide for situations where without complying with threshold requirement, a single allottee could move the application. In this regard, we should also bear in mind the scope of an application under Sections 397 and 398.151. The Central Government, having regard to the scheme of Companies Act, is intricately interconnected with the management of the companies. It had powers of investigation into the affairs of the companies under Section 235 and Section 237. The purport of Sections 397 and 398 include the conduct of the affairs of the company in any manner prejudicial to the public interest or also, no doubt, prejudicial to member or members. In such circumstances, clothing the Central Government with the power to waive the requirement and permitting the application to be presented by even a single member, is in sync with the scheme of the Companies Act. The role of the Central Government is different under the Code. In fact, the Central Government does not have any role, as such under the Code. It acts only through the designated Authorities under the Code. The Code is about insolvency resolution and on failure liquidation. The scheme of the Code is unique and its objects are vividly different from that of the Companies Act. Consequently, if the Legislature felt that threshold requirement representing a critical mass of allottees, alone would satisfy the requirement of a valid institution of an application under Section 7, it cannot be dubbed as either discriminatory or arbitrary.155. Thus, the procedure, under Order I Rule 8, is squarely made applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, in a situation, where, there are more than one consumer, having the same interest. It is true that the words same interest, has been understood in the light of the Explanation under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC and therefore, it is not necessary that all the numerous persons, within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act or in a civil suit, need establish that they have the same cause of action. What is essential is that they have the same interest. Interpreting the words same interest, it is still further true that this Court, in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. T. N. Ganapathy (1990) 1 SCC 608 , has held that what is required is only community of interest. This was a case where a suit was filed by allottees of plots of low-income groups against the appellant-Housing Board seeking injunction from demanding and collecting any additional price and the suit was held maintainable under Order I Rule 8, even though separate demand notices were issued to each allottees.156. In appreciating this argument, it is important to not be oblivious to the scheme of the Code and to distinguish it from a civil suit laid invoking order I Rule 8 or the consumer complaint presented by one consumer, sharing the same interest with numerous others, again invoking Order I Rule 8. It is true that once Order I Rule 8 is made applicable, a single plaintiff or a consumer, in a civil suit or a consumer complaint respectively, can set the ball rolling. All the persons, having the same interest, are free to join in the proceedings. Irrespective of whether they join or not, a Decree or order, which is pronounced, will bind all the persons having the same interest. The procedure, under Order I Rule 8, if it had been made applicable in regard to an application by the allottee of a real estate project, would indeed have made it very easy for a single allottee to invoke Section 7 of the Code and it would also have countenanced the participation of the other allottees, should they wished to be made parties upon the publication of the Notice contemplated in Order I Rule 8(2).157. So far so good. Now, we will examine the other side of the story and that is the object of the Code and the scheme of the Code. Under the Code, once an application is moved and is admitted under Section 7, the stage is set for resolving the insolvency. The Resolution of the Insolvency may be attained by replacing the existing management. The Law Giver has contemplated last mile funding. It has, however, fixed a time limit, as contemplated in Section 12 of the Code, no doubt as explained by this Court. Once, the application is admitted under Section 7(5), initially, the Interim Resolution Profession (IRP) would supplant the very management by virtue of the suspension of the powers of the management, as contemplated in the Code. The IRP may or may not continue as the Resolution Professional (RP) but a RP is, undoubtedly, to be appointed under the scheme of the Code. The management passes into the hands of the RP. Thereafter, depending upon the receipt of the Resolution Plan and its acceptability to the Committee of Creditors and finally the approval by the Adjudicating Authority of the Resolution Plan, which is approved by the Committee of Creditors, depends the Resolution of the Insolvency. All of this is to be completed within a period of 330 days again subject to the limit not being mandatory as explained by this Court in Essar Steel(supra). Should this not happen, the Adjudicating Authority is obliged, under Section 33, to pass an Order for winding up of the Corporate Debtor. Section 53 provides for the priority in the matter of payment of the amounts which are collected by way of liquidation value. The allottees would rank as unsecured creditors. The inevitable conclusion is that unlike in an ordinary civil suit or in a consumer complaint, the drastic consequences, as the inexorable liquidation of the corporate debtor, contemplated under the Code, is the inevitable consequence, of the application reaching the stage of Section 33 of the Code. Liquidation could take place even earlier under Section 33(4). As to whether the procedure contemplated in Order I Rule 8 is suitable, more appropriate and even more fair, is a matter, entirely in the realm of legislative choice and policy. Having regard to the scheme of the Code, which we have detailed above, there cannot be scintilla of doubt that what the petitioners are seeking to persuade us to hold, is to make a foray into the forbidden territory of legislative value judgment. This is all the more so, when the dangers lurking behind full play to Order I Rule 8 being given appear to be fairly clear. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this contention, which no doubt, at first blush, may appear attractive. We only need add that invalidating a law made by a competent Legislature, on the basis of what the Court may be induced to conclude, as a better arrangement or a more wise and even fairer system, is constitutionally impermissible. If, the impugned provisions are otherwise not infirm, they must pass muster.158. Are the Amendments violative of the `Pioneer Judgment in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others (2019) 8 SCC 416 , certain amendments to the Code were challenged. The challenged provisions included the Explanation added to Section 5(8)(f).159. The challenge was made in a batch of Writ Petitions filed by a group of Real Estate Developers. This Court was invited to adjudicate upon the constitutionality on a wide range of grounds. It is important to cull out the findings rendered by the Court in the said decision as much reliance has been placed by the Petitioners on the decision:i. The Code is a Legislation which deals with economic matters and, therefore, the Legislature must be given free play in the joints;ii. The legislative judgment in economic choices must be given a certain degree of deference by the Courts;iii. The amendment by which the explanation was inserted in Section 5(8) was clarificatory in nature and allottees/home buyers were included in the main provision, i.e., Section 5(8)(f) from the inception of the Code;iv. The amending Act did not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) or 300A of the Constitution of India;v. RERA and the Code must be held to co-exist, and in the event of a clash, RERA must give way to the Code. The Code and RERA operate in completely different spheres.vi. Paragragraph-30 of the judgment in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd.(supra) reads as follows:30. As a matter of fact, the Code and RERA operate in completely different spheres. The Code deals with a proceeding in rem in which the focus is the rehabilitation of the corporate debtor. This is to take place by replacing the management of the corporate debtor by means of a resolution plan which must be accepted by 66% of the Committee of Creditors, which is now put at the helm of affairs, in deciding the fate of the corporate debtor. Such resolution plan then puts the same or another management in the saddle, subject to the provisions of the Code, so that the corporate debtor may be pulled out of the woods and may continue as a going concern, thus benefitting all stakeholders involved. It is only as a last resort that winding up of the corporate debtor is resorted to, so that its assets may be liquidated and paid out in the manner provided by Section 53 of the Code. On the other hand, RERA protects the interests of the individual investor in real estate projects by requiring the promoter to strictly adhere to its provisions. The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable. Given the different spheres within which these two enactments operate, different parallel remedies are given to allottees under RERA to see that their flat/apartment is constructed and delivered to them in time, barring which compensation for the same and/or refund of amounts paid together with interest at the very least comes their way. If, however, the allottee wants that the corporate debtors management itself be removed and replaced, so that the corporate debtor can be rehabilitated, he may prefer a Section 7 application under the Code. That another parallel remedy is available is recognised by RERA itself in the proviso to Section 71(1), by which an allottee may continue with an application already filed before the Consumer Protection Fora, he being given the choice to withdraw such complaint and file an application before the adjudicating officer under RERA read with Section 88. In similar circumstances, this Court in Swaraj Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. [Swaraj Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 620 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 136] has held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956 can carry on in parallel streams (see paras 21 and 22 therein).vii. It is apposite to advert to paragraph-41 in the nature of the contentions raised in this case. To quote:41. It is also important to remember that the Code is not meant to be a debt recovery mechanism (see para 28 of Swiss Ribbons [Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17 ]). It is a proceeding in rem which, after being triggered, goes completely outside the control of the allottee who triggers it. Thus, any allottee/home buyer who prefers an application under Section 7 of the Code takes the risk of his flat/apartment not being completed in the near future, in the event of there being a breach on the part of the developer. Under the Code, he may never get a refund of the entire principal, let alone interest. This is because, the moment a petition is admitted under Section 7, the resolution professional must first advertise for and find a resolution plan by somebody, usually another developer, which has then to pass muster under the Code i.e. that it must be approved by at least 66% of the Committee of Creditors and must further go through challenges before NCLT and NCLAT before the new management can take over and either complete construction, or pay out or refund amounts. Depending on the kind of resolution plan that is approved, such home buyer/allottee may have to wait for a very long period for the successful completion of the project. He may never get his full money back together with interest in the event that no suitable resolution plan is forthcoming, in which case, winding up of the corporate debtor alone would ensue. On the other hand, if such allottee were to approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority under RERA, it is more than likely that the project would be completed early by the persons mentioned therein, and/or full amount of refund and interest together with compensation and penalty, if any, would be awarded. Thus, given the bona fides of the allottee who moves an application under Section 7 of the Code, it is only such allottee who has completely lost faith in the management of the real estate developer who would come before NCLT under the Code hoping that some other developer takes over and completes the project, while always taking the risk that if no one were to come forward, corporate death must ensue and the allottee must then stand in line to receive whatever is given to him in winding up. Given the reasons of the Insolvency Committee Report, which show that experience of the real estate sector in this country has not been encouraging, in that huge amounts are advanced by ordinary people to finance housing projects which end up in massive delays on the part of the developer or even worse i.e. failure of the project itself, and given the state of facts which was existing at the time of the legislation, as adverted to by the Insolvency Committee Report, it is clear that any alleged discrimination has to meet the tests laid down in Ram Krishna Dalmia [Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538 ] , V.C. Shukla [V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1980 Supp SCC 249 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 849 ] , Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. [State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 656 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 381] , Venkateshwara Theatre [Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of A.P., (1993) 3 SCC 677 ] and Mardia Chemicals [Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 ].viii. On the possibility of the Code being misused by a single allottee, we may notice the following:51. One other argument that is made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners is that allottees of flats/apartments who do not want refunds, but who want their flats/apartments constructed so that they may occupy and live in their flats/apartments, will be jeopardised, as a single allottee who does not want the flat/apartments, but wants a refund of amounts paid for reasons best known to him, can trigger the Code and upset the construction and handing over of such flats/apartments to the vast bulk of allottees of a project who may be genuine buyers who wish to occupy such flats/apartments as roofs over their heads. Another facet of this argument is that the bulk of such persons will never be on the Committee of Creditors, as they may not be persons who trigger the Code at all. These arguments are met by the fact that all the allottees of the project in question can either join together under the Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Code, or file their own individual petitions after the Code gets triggered by a single allottee, stating that in addition to the construction of their flat/apartment, they are also entitled to compensation under RERA and/or under the general law, and would thus be persons who have a claim i.e. a right to remedy for breach of contract which gives rise to a right to compensation, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, and would therefore be persons to whom a liability or obligation in respect of a claim is due. Such persons would, therefore, have a voice in the Committee of Creditors as to future plans for completion of the project, and compensation for late delivery of the flat/apartment. This contention, therefore, also has no legs to stand upon.ix. This Court also held that the erstwhile Management is free to offer a resolution plan in the event of an Application under Section 7, being admitted in favour of an allottee, subject, no doubt, to Section 29 (A) of the Code, which may be accepted.160. It is clear that impugned provisos do not set at nought the ruling of this Court in Pioneer (supra). In a challenge by real estate developers upholding the provisions in the manner done including the explanation in Section 5 (8)(f) and allaying the apprehension about abuse by individual allotees cannot detract from the law giver amending the very law on its understanding of the working of the Code at the instance of certain groups of applicants and impact it produces on the economy and the frustration of the sublime goals of the law.163. As far as allottees are concerned in regard to apartments and plots, Section 11(1)(b) of the RERA makes it mandatory for the promoter to make available information regarding the bookings. We have conflated bookings with allotments. We cannot proceed on the basis of the contention of the petitioners that the impugned provisos are unworkable and arbitrary on the basis that the court must take notice of the reality which is that the promoters do not make available information as required of them. The burden it is well settled to prove all facts to successfully challenge the statute is always on the petitioner. There cannot be a priori reasoning, and there is no burden on the state. If there is defiance of the law by promoters, the allottees are not helpless. They can always seek proper redress in the appropriate forum. No doubt, we also would observe that it becomes the duty of all the authorities to ensure that the promoters will stringently abide by their duties under the act. Section 11(1)(b) of the RERA speaks about information being made available regarding bookings which can be subsequently acquires the allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise. In Section 11(1)(b) there is reference to bookings. If the information is to be limited to the original booking then the information about assignment just mentioned may not be made available. In this regard we may notice the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram (Quarterly Progress Report) Regulations 2018. Regulation 4 provides inter alia that the promoter shall upload on the webpage which he has to create for the project within 15 days from the expiry of each quarter, namely, the list of number and types of apartments/plots booked. Our attention has also been drawn to the format for Quarterly Progress Report to be submitted under Haryana Regulations. A perusal of the report would show that the promoter is obliged to submit the names of the allottees. Obviously, if there is change in the allotment the changed name should be reflected in the Report. This must undoubtedly be ensured by the authorities stringently. We also find merit in the contention of the Union that the Association of allottees has to be formed under the mandate of the law it is expected to play an important role. Information will certainly be forthcoming in regard to allotments upon the allottees becoming members of the Association as required. We cannot ignore the role of the association in the matter of becoming the transferee of the common areas, being clothed with the right of first refusal within the meaning of section 7 of the Act and also the right to complain otherwise under the Act. This aspect of the association of allottees is not a matter of mere trifle. The allottees cannot truly possess and enjoy their properties be it an apartment or building without their having right of common areas. The promoter is bound under Section 17 to transfer title to the common areas to the association. Section 19(9) of RERA makes it a duty on the part of the allottee to participate towards the formation of the association or cooperative society or the federation of the same. The possession of the common areas is also to be handed over to the association of the allottees. The law giver has therefore created a mechanism, namely, the association of allottees through which the allottees are expected to gather information about the status of the allotments including the names and addresses of the allottees. We cannot proceed on the basis in a case which involves a challenge to a statute that the information to be gathered under the statute will not be available on the basis that the statute will not be worked as contemplated by the law giver. Hence, we reject the contentions of the allottees.164. In regard to the debenture holders and security holders also we would see no merit in the contentions. There is a statutory mechanism, which is comprised in the provisions of the Companies act 2013, namely Section (88).165. Violation of Section 88 (1) is made punishable under Section 88 (3).166. There is no case established that the version of the Union about availability of information contained in the registers which can be perused is not correct. Again, the burden is on the petitioners and they have not discharged their burden.167. Both sides have placed reliance on a large number of decisions in relation to reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution. Even in the first decade of the Republic, this Court has, in a large number of cases, settled the principles in regard to what constitutes hostile discrimination and what is reasonable classification. Since, we would be in the region of platitude, if we were to chronicle the principles laid down in each of those cases, we think it suffices to refer to some of the decisions of this Court alone.168. In Ameerunnissa Begum (supra), which involved the challenge to law made by the Nizam as Raj Pramukh of the former State of Hyderabad, we need notice the following:11. The nature and scope of the guarantee that is implied in the equal protection clause of the Constitution have been explained and discussed in more than one decision of this court and do not require repetition. It is well settled that a legislature which has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must, of necessity, have the power of making special laws to attain particulars objects; and for that purpose it must have large powers of selection or classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. To attract the operation of the clause it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable arbitrary; that it does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the objects which the legislature has in view.169. In Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra), the petitioner before the High Court alleged discriminatory proceedings for acquiring his land under the Improvement Trust Act instead of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court while dismissing the appeal and affirming the view of the High Court that there was hostile discrimination proceeded to lay down as follows:26. It is now well-settled that the State can make a reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. It is equally well-settled that the classification in order to be reasonable must satisfy two tests: (i) the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation in question.In this connection it must be borne in mind that the object itself should be lawful. The object itself cannot be discriminatory, for otherwise, for instance, if the object is to discriminate against one section of the minority the discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that there is a reasonable classification because it has rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.xxx xxx xxx xxx28. It would not be disputed that different principles of compensation cannot be formulated for lands acquired on the basis that the owner is old or young, healthy or ill, tall or short, or whether the owner has inherited the property or built it with his own efforts, or whether the owner is politician or an advocate. Why is this sort of classification not sustainable? Because the object being to compulsorily acquire for a public purpose, the object is equally achieved whether the land belongs to one type of owner or another type.29. Can classification be made on the basis of the public purpose for the purpose of compensation for which land is acquired? In other words can the Legislature lay down different principles of compensation for lands acquired say for a hospital or a school or a Government building? Can the Legislature say that for a hospital land will be acquired at 50% of the market value, for a school at 60% of the value and for a Government building at 70% of the market value? All three objects are public purposes and as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether it is one public purpose or the other. Article 14 confers an individual right and in order to justify a classification there should be something which justifies a different treatment to this individual right. It seems to us that ordinarily a classification based on the public purpose is not permissible under Article 14 for the purpose of determining compensation. The position is different when the owner of the land himself is the recipient of benefits from an improvement scheme, and the benefit to him is taken into consideration in fixing compensation. Can classification be made on the basis of the authority acquiring the land? In other words can different principles of compensation be laid if the land is acquired for or by an Improvement Trust or Municipal Corporation or the Government? It seems to us that the answer is in the negative because as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether the land is acquired by one authority or the other.170. It is also correct that this decision has come to be relied upon by this Court recently in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304. 172. In Triloki Nath Khosa(supra), this Court was called upon to pronounce on subordinate legislation which according to writ petitioners denied them the guarantee of Article 14. This Court held, inter-alia, as follows:18. This submission is erroneous in its formulation of a legal proposition governing onus of proof and it is unjustified in the charge that the record discloses no evidence to show the necessity of the new Rule. There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. [Ram Krishan Dalmia v. Justice S. R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538 : 1959 SCR 279 , 297(b): 1959 SCJ 147 ] A rule cannot be struck down as discriminatory on any a priori reasoning. That where a party seeks to impeach the validity of a rule made by a competent authority on the ground that the Rules offend Act. 14 the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity is too well established to need elaboration. The burden thus is on the respondents to set out facts necessary to sustain the plea of discrimination and to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove those facts for there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material has been taken into account in formulating the classification. [State of U. P. v. Kartar SinghAIR 1964 SC 1135 : (1964) 6 SCR 679 , 687 : (1964) 2 SCJ 666.] In G.D. Kelkar v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [AIR 1967 SC 839 : (1967) 2 SCR 29 , 34 : (1967) 2 SCJ 182] Subba Rao, C.J., speaking for the Court has cited three other decisions of the Court in support of the proposition that unless the classification is unjust on the face of it, the onus lies upon the party attacking the classification to show by pleading the necessary material before the Court that the said classification is unreasonable and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.19.Thus, it is no part of the appellants burden to justify the classification or to establish its constitutionality. Discrimination is the essence of classification and does violence to the constitutional guarantee of equality only if it rests on an unreasonable basis.31. Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it may produce artificial inequalities and therefore, the right to classify is hedged in with salient restraints; or else, the guarantee of equality will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant to govern well marked classes characterized by different and distinct attainments. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.32. Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification, for were such an inquiry permisible it would be open to the Courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature or the Rule-making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object.173. Justice Krishna Iyer in his concurring judgement laid down inter-alia as follows:Mini-classifications based on micro- distinctions are false to our egalitarian faith and only substantial and straightforward classifications plainly promoting relevant goals can have constitutional validity. To overdo classification is to undo equality.178. In the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Subramanian Swami vs. Director, CBI and ors. (2014) 8 SCC 682  the issue was the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Section 6A declared that the CBI shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 except with the previous approval of the Central Government where the allegation was in relation to employees of the Central government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and also officers appointed by the Central Government in public sector corporations controlled by the Central Government. It is dealing with this challenge that this Court went on to hold after refering to the earlier case law including the judgment of this Court in the Special Courts case (supra) that it is well settled that the Courts do not substitute their views as to what the policy is. It held as follows:49. Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that there is always a presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be shown. The fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process needs to be recognised by the Court and due regard and deference must be accorded to the legislative process. Where the legislation is sought to be challenged as being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must remind itself to the principles relating to the applicability of Article 14 in relation to invalidation of legislation. The two dimensions of Article 14 in its application to legislation and rendering legislation invalid are now well recognised and these are: (i) discrimination, based on an impermissible or invalid classification, and (ii) excessive delegation of powers; conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers on the executive, whether in the form of delegated legislation or by way of conferment of authority to pass administrative orders—if such conferment is without any guidance, control or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also needs to be mindful that a legislation does not become unconstitutional merely because there is another view or because another method may be considered to be as good or even more effective, like any issue of social, or even economic policy. It is well settled that the courts do not substitute their views on what the policy is.179. It was found that the classification made in Section 6A on the basis of status in Central Government service is not permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court posed the question as to whether there is sound differentiation between corrupt public servant based on their status. As noted, the provision was found to be unconstitutional.181. In 1960 1 SCR 39 / AIR 1959 SC 1124 , the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 apart from certain orders passed thereunder. The contention taken by the petitioners was that since the declared object of the Act was to earn foreign exchange, compelling only sugar manufacturers which manufactured by vacuum pan process to export sugar was discriminatory. They also pointed out that manufactures of commodities other than sugar were not compelled to export in the same manner and there was further discrimination. It was while repelling this contention that the Court laid down as follows:21. In our opinion, this argument is without substance. The power of Parliament to make laws in relation to foreign exchange is manifest. Entry No. 36 of the Union List specifically confers jurisdiction on Parliament to legislate in relation to foreign exchange. That Entry, if interpreted widely, would embrace within itself not only laws relating to the control of foreign exchange but also to its acquisition to better the economic stability of the country. The need for foreign exchange to finance the various development schemes was, very properly, not disputed. It is, thus, plain that the object of the Act is in the public interest. If we are to exist as a progressive nation, it is very necessary that we carve out a place for ourselves in the International market. The beginning has to be made, and many a time, it is at a great loss. That the Central Government has selected the sugar industry for an export programme does not mean that it cannot make a classification of the commodities, bearing in mind which commodity will have an easy market abroad for the purpose of earning foreign exchange. During the Suez crisis, sugar was exported in large quantities from this country, and earned 12.4 crores as foreign exchange. There is nothing on the record to show that export of other commodities was not also undertaken, though it was pointed out in arguments that manganese ore was also exported in a similar manner to earn foreign exchange. It is quite obvious that the Central Government cannot order the export of all and sundry manufactured commodities from the country, without being assured of a market in foreign countries. Necessarily, the Government can only embark upon an export policy in relation to those products, for which there is an easy and readily available market abroad. For this reason also, sugar produced by the vacuum pan process may have been selected, because such sugar is perhaps in demand abroad and not sugar produced by any other process. It must be realised that goods manufactured in our country have to stand heavy competition from goods produced abroad, and even this export can only be made at great sacrifice, and is made only to earn foreign exchange, which would not, otherwise, be available.182. In 1976 2 SCC 310 , this Court was dealing with the challenge to the judgment of the High Court by which it had upheld the challenge by the respondent to a rule which granted power to the appellant State to grant further exemption to the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes to pass the departmental test necessary for being considered for promotion. The learned ASG drew support from the following statement in the judgement by Justice K.K. Mathew:83. A classification is reasonable if it includes all persons who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law. In other words, the classification must be founded on some reasonable ground which distinguishes persons who are grouped together and the ground of distinction must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or even the rules in question. It is a mistake to assume a priori that there can be no classification within a class, say, the lower division clerks. If there are intelligible differentia which separates a group within that class from the rest and that differentia have nexus with the object of classification, I see no objection to a further classification within the class. It is no doubt a paradox that though in one sense classification brings about inequality, it is promotive of equality if its object is to bring those who share a common characteristic under a class for differential treatment for sufficient and justifiable reasons. In this view, I have no doubt that the principle laid down in All India Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters Association v. General Manager, Central Railway [(1960) 2 SCR 311 : AIR 1960 SC 384 .] ; S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and State of J&K. v. Triloki Nath Khosa [(1974) 1 SCR 771 : (1974) 1 SCC 19 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 49.] has no application here.183. In Indira Sawney v. Union of India 1992 Supp 3 SCC 217, this Court held, This merely sees goes to show that even among backward classes, there can be sub-classification on a reasonable basis.184. In State of West Bengal and ors. v. Rash Bihari Sarkar and ors. (1993) 1 SCC 479 , exemption was granted under Bengal Amusements Act, 1922 as amended in 1981 from Entertainment Tax for theatre groups which were bonafide and which performed not for monetary gain which tax exemption was not given to theatre groups which performed for monetary gains. Both were theatre groups. Noticing however, the distinction between the theatre groups, this Court went on to hold as follows:4. Equality means equality in similar circumstances between same class of persons for same purpose and objective. It cannot operate amongst unequals. Only likes can be treated alike. But even amongst likes the legislature or executive may classify on distinction which are real. A classification amongst groups performing shows for monetary gains and cultural activities cannot be said to be arbitrary. May be that both the groups carry out the legislative objective of promoting social and educational activities and, therefore, they are likes but the distinction between the two on monetary gains and otherwise is real and intelligible. So long the classification is reasonable it cannot be struck down as arbitrary. Likes can be treated differently for good and valid reasons. The State in treating the group performing theatrical shows for advancement of social and educational purpose, differently, on basis of profit- making from those formed exclusively for cultural activities cannot be said to have acted in violation of Article 14.