28. It is clear, therefore, that even by a process of harmonious  construction, RERA and the Code must be held to co-exist, and,  in the event of a clash, RERA must give way to the Code. RERA,  therefore, cannot be held to be a special statute which, in the case  of a conflict, would override the general statute, viz. the Code.
29..........................................................................................Given the different  spheres within which these two enactments operate, different 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. 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 debtor’s 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 8
41.......................................................................We have already pointed out how real estate developers are, in substance, persons who avail finance from allottees who then fund the real estate development project. The  object of dividing debts into two categories under the Code, 
namely, financial and operational debts, is broadly to sub-divide debts into those in which money is lent and those where debts are  incurred on account of goods being sold or services being  rendered. We have no doubt that real estate developers fall  squarely within the object of the Code as originally enacted insofar  as they are financial debtors and not operational debtors, as has  been pointed out hereinabove. So far as unequals being treated  as equals is concerned, home buyers/allottees can be assimilated  with other individual financial creditors like debenture holders and fixed deposit holders, who have advanced certain amounts to the corporate debtor. For example, fixed deposit holders, though  financial creditors, would be like real estate allottees in that they are unsecured creditors. Financial contracts in the case of these 
individuals need not involve large sums of money. Debenture  holders and fixed deposit holders, unlike real estate holders, are involved in seeing that they recover the amounts that are lent and are thus not directly involved or interested in assessing the viability of the corporate debtors.Though not having the expertise or information to be in a position to evaluate feasibility and viability of  resolution plans, such individuals, by virtue of being financial  creditors, have a right to be on the Committee of Creditors to safeguard their interest. Also, thequestion that is to be asked when a debenture holder or fixed deposit holder prefers a Section 7 application under the Code will be asked in the case of allottees of real estate developers – is a debt due in fact or in law? Thus, allottees, being individual financial creditors like debenture 
holders and fixed deposit holders and classified as such, show that they within the larger class of financial creditors, there being no infraction of Article 14 on this score. 
43.......................We have already held that given the fact that home buyers/allottees give advances to the real estate developer and 
thereby finance the real estate project at hand, are really financial creditors. Given this finding, this plea of the Petitioners must also 
be rejected. This challenge must also, therefore, fail. 
57. Given the fact that the Amendment Act has been held to be constitutionally valid, and considering that its language is clear  and unambiguous, it is not possible to accede to the contentions of the Petitioners to read down the clear provisions of the Amendment Act in the manner suggested by them
70. And now some of the other arguments on behalf of the Petitioners need to be met. According to learned counsel for the Petitioners, the expression “means and includes” would indicate that that the definition section is exhaustive, and this being so, alien subject matter such as home buyers cannot be inserted therein
73. In any event, as was correctly argued by learned Additional Solicitor General Mrs. Madhavi Divan, the legislature is not precluded by way of amendment from inserting words into what may even be an exhaustive definition. What is an exhaustive definition is exhaustive for purposes of interpretation of a statute by the Courts, which cannot bind the legislature when it adds something to the statute by way of amendment. On this score also, there is no substance in the aforesaid argument. 
i. The Amendment Act to the Code does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India.   
ii. The RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the Amendment Act. It is only in the event of conflict that the Code will prevail over the RERA. Remedies that are given to allottees of flats/apartments are therefore concurrent remedies, such allottees offlats/apartments being in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, RERA as well as the triggering of the 
iii. Section 5(8)(f) as it originally appeared in the Code being a residuary provision, always subsumed within it allottees of flats/apartments. The explanation together with the deeming fiction added by the Amendment Act is only clarificatory of this position in law.
89. All writ petitions and the civil appeal are disposed of in the light of this judgment. Stay orders granted by this Court to continue until the NCLT takes up each application filed by an allottee/ home buyer to decide the same in light of this judgment. No order as to costs