BBCL Before Insolvency: What Really Happened

Many plot holders are still unsure why the Baruipur Bloomfield City (BBCL) project stopped and how it reached insolvency. This confusion is natural because the project structure was complex and not clearly explained to buyers at the beginning. Understanding what happened before insolvency helps plot holders see the real reasons for delay, confusion, and risk—and also helps everyone make better decisions going forward. This article explains the situation in very simple language, without legal terms, so that every plot holder can understand how the project worked, where it failed, and why this history matters today.

👉 BBCL was never a simple, single-company project. It was a network of companies, land parcels, and agreements.

When coordination failed, everything stopped.

Any future solution must:

  • Keep land, money, and decisions under one transparent control
  • Move phase by phase, not all at once
  • Be driven by plot holders themselves, not outsiders

Awareness of this past helps the community make safer, clearer, and more informed choices together.

One Project, But Three Companies

At first glance, BBCL looked like one single township project. Most buyers believed they were dealing with one company. In reality, the project was handled through three different companies working together as a group.

These companies were:

  • Suryodaya Realtors Private Limited (SRPL)
  • Sampark Land Developers Private Limited (SLDPL)
  • Sampark Land and Builders Private Limited (SLBPL)

All three were controlled by the same promoters but existed as separate legal entities.

This matters to plot holders because payments, agreements, and land ownership were spread across different companies. When problems arose, it was not clear which company was responsible for what. This made accountability difficult and later created legal complications for buyers.

Who Owned the Land

Together, the three companies purchased about 139 bighas of land. However, the land status was mixed:

  • Around 120 bighas were registered
  • About 19 bighas were not registered, though advance payment was made
  • Sale agreements existed for about 108–110 bighas
  • Sale agreements covering 85.19 bighas of land were not registered in the names of the respective plot holders.
  • Sale agreements covering 13.31 bighas of land were registered in the names of the respective plot holders.

Some plots were registered in company names, some were later registered in individual buyers’ names, and some land was still pending registration.

For plot holders, this meant the land was not fully connected or complete. Because some pieces were missing or unregistered, basic development like roads, drainage, and proper boundary marking could not be done smoothly. Even if most land was bought, a few missing pieces could block the entire layout.

How Plot Buyers Paid Money

Marketing of the project was done under SLDPL. Most plot holders paid their installments to SLDPL.

However:

  • Sale agreements were often signed with SLDPL
  • Final ownership transfer (conveyance) was supposed to be done by SRPL
  • The actual land could belong to SRPL or SLBPL

Money collected by SLDPL was shared internally among the group companies. Around ₹9 crore was transferred to SRPL.

For buyers, this created confusion. Payments went to one company, agreements mentioned another, and land ownership involved a third. When things went wrong, buyers did not know whom to approach or hold responsible.

How Work Was Divided Internally

Inside the group, directors had divided responsibilities:

  • Some handled land purchase and development work like roads and drainage
  • Some handled marketing and administration
  • One handled accounts, banking, and legal work

In October 2015, the two directors responsible for land acquisition and development resigned suddenly.

This directly affected plot holders. Once the people managing land and ground work left, development slowed and then stopped. There was no strong replacement system, and coordination broke down.

Why Development Stopped

Development stopped mainly because the land was incomplete and scattered:

  • Proper demarcation could not be done
  • Roads and drainage could not be built without continuous land

Seeing no visible progress, many plot holders stopped paying further installments. They felt it was unfair to pay without seeing development.

This led to a cash crunch for the companies. Without money, work could not continue. Without work, buyers refused to pay.

This created a deadlock: no development and no payments.

Loans and Financial Stress

To manage the crisis, SLDPL took loans:

  • ₹35 lakh from Greenland Projects
  • ₹15 lakh from Toddlen Fashions Private Limited

To secure these loans, promoters pledged 76% of their shares across all three companies.

Even with loans, the project did not recover. Costs increased, trust reduced, and work did not restart properly.

For plot holders, this increased risk. The companies became financially weak, and control over shares reduced.

As delays continued, many buyers demanded refunds with interest. Legal notices were sent to SLDPL.

However:

  • Most money had already been spent
  • Land development was incomplete

The companies were stuck. They could not give possession, and they could not refund money either.

This situation led to official default.

Entry Into Insolvency (CIRP)

In 2020, SRPL itself applied for insolvency under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The NCLT Kolkata admitted the case on 30 April 2021.

A Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed, and control moved from promoters to the court-supervised insolvency process.

For plot holders, this meant decisions were no longer in the hands of the original promoters. The project came under legal supervision.

What the Resolution Plan Tried to Fix

Plot buyers themselves proposed a resolution plan. The idea was to:

  • Form a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) made up of plot buyers
  • Use the SPV to take control of all three companies together

Why all three? Because land, money, and operations were deeply connected. Fixing only one company would not work.

The simple logic was: one project must be resolved together.

How the Project Was Supposed to Work (Original Design)

Originally:

  • SLDPL was to handle marketing, development, plotting, and buying/selling land
  • SRPL and SLBPL were to hold land titles and comply with land ceiling laws
  • Buyers, SLDPL, and SRPL/SLBPL were to sign tri-partite agreements

This structure needed strong coordination. Once coordination failed, the entire system collapsed.

For plot holders, the complexity meant delays were hard to fix once problems started.

Why This Matters to Plot Holders Today

BBCL failed not because of one single mistake, but due to:

  • Fragmented land ownership
  • Multiple companies
  • Sudden exit of key directors
  • Payment deadlock
  • Weak execution control

Understanding this history helps plot holders:

  • See why insolvency happened
  • Understand why collective solutions like an SPV are proposed
  • Avoid repeating the same mistakes in future planning

Key Takeaway (In Simple Words)

BBCL was never a simple, single-company project. It was a network of companies, land parcels, and agreements.

When coordination failed, everything stopped.

Any future solution must:

  • Keep land, money, and decisions under one transparent control
  • Move phase by phase, not all at once
  • Be driven by plot holders themselves, not outsiders

Awareness of this past helps the community make safer, clearer, and more informed choices together.