NCLT Mumbai Holds Dev Land Transaction Fraudulent In Satra Properties Insolvency, Orders ₹24.45 Crore Repayment

The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), hearing proceedings arising from the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Satra Properties (India) Ltd., has held that the forfeiture of ₹29.35 crore advanced by the company to Dev Land & Housing Pvt. Ltd. was a fraudulent transaction.

It directed Dev Land & Housing and former director Praful Satra to jointly or severally contribute ₹24.45 crore to the assets of Satra Properties (India) Ltd.

The tribunal observed, "Respectfully following the finding of Hon'ble NCLAT in relation to this transaction at para 50 of the order dated 03.07.2025, we hold the transaction with M/s Dev Land & Housing Pvt Ltd. as fraudulent falling within the ambit of Section 66 of the Code IBC."

A bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar held, "In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the Respondent No.1 M/s Dev Land & Housing Pvt Ltd. as well as Respondent No.5 to contribute a sum of Rs. 24.45 crores (Rs. 29.35 crores minus Rs. 4.90 crores), jointly or severally, to the Corporate Debtor within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the amount shall a recoverable along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum chargeable on the principal outstanding."

The proceedings arose from an application filed by Resolution Professional Vaishali Patrikar seeking directions against several parties over transactions alleged to be fraudulent. In April 2024, the tribunal declined relief in relation to transactions involving Dev Land & Housing and C. Bhansali Developers. On appeal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside that part of the order in relation to both transactions.

It held the Dev Land transaction to be fraudulent and remitted the matter to the tribunal for further action in accordance with law. During the remanded proceedings, the Resolution Professional did not press the claim against C. Bhansali Developers because the corporate debtor's claim, including the interest component, had already been admitted in that company's corporate insolvency resolution process. The tribunal therefore held that no further adjudication was required in relation to that transaction.

Praful Satra and others argued that the matter should be reheard. They contended that the appellate tribunal had overlooked several factual aspects, including the validity of the memorandum of understanding, the refund of ₹4.90 crore, and the absence of any related-party relationship.

They also argued that questions concerning the fairness of the contractual clauses and the allegation of fraud required appreciation of evidence and should be decided by a competent civil court. Praful Satra further relied on a settlement proposal approved by creditors holding more than 67.34% voting share in the committee of creditors. He urged the tribunal to bring the proceedings to a close on that basis.

The tribunal declined to revisit those submissions. It held that judicial discipline required it to follow the NCLAT's findings and not re-examine the evidence or additional submissions relating to the Dev Land transaction.

The tribunal observed, "Further, the judicial discipline requires us not to get into examination of the evidences as well as additional submissions in relation to findings of Hon'ble NCLAT, accordingly, we refrain from examination of the additional submission and the evidences placed before us in relation to this transaction."

The tribunal also held that the proposed settlement could not be imposed on the parties because Dev Land & Housing had also been held liable to contribute to the corporate debtor's assets in light of the NCLAT's findings.

It therefore directed Dev Land & Housing and Praful Satra to deposit ₹24.45 crore within 30 days after adjusting the ₹4.90 crore already refunded. If they fail to do so, the amount will carry interest at 12% per annum.

For the Applicant : Advocate Ashwini Chindarkar, Pulkit Sharma

For Respondent No. 1:  Advocate Nishant Chothani along with Advocate Yash Chheda

For Respondent No.5 to 9 : Advocate Tanishka Desai