Summary
In the continuing Amrapali litigation, La Residentia buyers sought NBCC takeover while the developer sought relief from the earlier direction earmarking 632 flats for Amrapali interests. The Court refused to reopen those orders or grant the requested broader benefits, considering the project's ongoing and advanced construction and likely takeover costs. It nevertheless permitted supervised sales of the 632 flats, with fair-price certification, Receiver-controlled receipts, reimbursement of certified construction costs and transfer of the resulting balance for Amrapali homebuyers' benefit.
Issues
- Whether earlier La Residentia orders should be reopened and the project transferred to NBCC.
- How sales of the earmarked 632 flats could secure the Amrapali homebuyers' interest while enabling construction.
Held
- The earlier orders had already quantified the Amrapali interest and addressed the developer's objections. Given that history and the subsequent project developments, the Court declined recall or reconsideration of whether the company should be declared part of the Amrapali group. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 24)
- Substantial construction and delivery distinguished La Residentia from stalled projects transferred to NBCC. The likely cost escalation and the dispersal of the 632 flats across towers and phases made either whole-project or isolated-flat takeover inappropriate on these facts. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The developer could continue construction and sell the 632 flats only at a Receiver-certified fair price, with transactions and documents countersigned by the Receiver or nominee and all receipts placed in a separately controlled account. (¶¶ 26(a), 26(b)(i)–(iii))
- Certified construction costs relating to those flats could be paid to the developer to the Receiver's satisfaction, including progress-based advances. The final difference between sale receipts and construction expenditure was for the general account benefiting Amrapali homebuyers; the prior sale injunction was modified accordingly. (¶¶ 26(b)(iv)–(v), 26(c), 26(d))
- The first two sets of applications were rejected subject to the operative safeguards, and no separate order was required on the creditor's application. The Court did not grant the broader requested GNIDA or other reliefs. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27)
Result
Applications disposed of without costs: no recall or NBCC takeover; developer allowed to continue and sell the 632 flats under Receiver supervision, with the final surplus allocated for Amrapali homebuyers.