Approval of Resolution Plan - Bulland Realtor Private Limited

National Company Law Tribunal11 August 2026

CitationIA(IBC)(Plan)/15/PB/2024 in C.P. (IB)/296/PB/2023

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority's scope on an application under Section 31 read with Section 30(2) is confined to the statutory requirements in Section 30(2); it cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving a resolution plan, and once satisfied that the CoC has applied its mind to those requirements it must approve the plan. Where a resolution plan approved by the CoC is subject to a change in the Corporate Debtor's position after CoC approval, such as enhanced statutory dues, a revised settlement mechanism approved by the CoC by a further vote may be taken on record as forming part of the approved plan, and the Adjudicating Authority may approve the plan so read. A resolution applicant is not entitled to reliefs, concessions or waivers beyond those available under Sections 31(1) and 32A of the Code; any further relief must be sought from the relevant authorities under the applicable law, and the plan's payment obligations to creditors and stakeholders cannot be made subject to conditions, assumptions or qualifications. A claim by a person asserting status as a financial creditor in a class must be verified by the resolution professional against the books of accounts of the corporate debtor; documents not reflected in the corporate debtor's records do not furnish a basis for admission of the claim, and rejection on that footing is not arbitrary.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALNEW DELHI (COURT-II)IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024,IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025INCP(IB)–296/PB/2023IN THE MATTER OF CP(IB)–296/PB/2023:(Under: Section 7 of IBC, 2016 (CIRP)Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited … Petitioner/Financial CreditorVersusBulland Realtors Private Limited … Respondent/Corporate DebtorAND IN THE MATTER OF IA. NO. 15/2024:(Under: Section 30(6) r/w 31 of the IBC, 2016)Mr. Ashish Singh2514, 5th Floor Tower-A, A-41, The Corenthum,Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 … Applicant/RPVersus1. M/s Saviour Builders Pvt. Ltd.Through its DirectorF-122A & F-122B, 1st Floor, Vardhman Tower,Preet Vihar, New Delhi-1100922. Greater Noida Industrial Development AuthorityThrough CEOPlot No. 01, Knowledge Park-04, Greater Noida,Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308 … Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF IA. NO. 5628/2025: (Under: Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016) Mr. Ashish Singh 2541, 5th Floor Tower-A, A-41 The Corenthum, Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 … Applicant/RP IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

AND IN THE MATTER OF IA. NO. 1143/2024: (Under: Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016) Mr. Sheesh Pal 66 Gyan Khand-4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201014 … Applicant Versus Mr. Ashish Singh 153-A, Tower-A, 5th Floor, The Corenthum, Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 … Respondent/RP

AND IN THE MATTER OF IA. NO. 3610/2024: (Under: Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016) Radhey Krishna Technobuild Private Limited B-49, Gautam Budh Nagar, Sector-63, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 … Applicant Versus Mr. Ashish Singh Unit No. 2514, Fifth Floor Tower-A, The Corenthum, Sector-62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 … Respondent/RP

AND IN THE MATTER OF IA. NO. 5984/2024: (Under: Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Plot No. 01, Knowldege Park-04, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308 … Applicant Versus 1. Mr. Ashish Singh Unit No. 153A, Fifth Floor Tower-A, A-41, The Corenthum 41, Sector 62, Noida-201301

2. M/s Saviour Builder Private Limited F-122A & F-122B, 1st Floor, Vardhman Tower, Preet Vihar, New Delhi-110092 … Respondents

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Order delivered on: 11.08.2026 CORAM: SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER (J) SH. ATUL CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (T)

PRESENT: For the Applicant : Adv. Shravan Chandrashekhar in IA-1143/24 For the RP : Adv. Sumant Batra, Adv. Sarthak Bhandari, Adv. Riya Kaur Arora

PER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, MEMBER (J) ORDER I.A. No. 15/2024 & I.A. No. 5628/2025: The present applications has been preferred by Mr. Ashish Singh (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Applicant/RP’) under Section 30(6) read with Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) read with Regulation 39 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP Regulations”), seeking the following reliefs:- I.A. No. 15/2024 “a. Pass an order approving the Resolution Plan dated 11.01.2024 along with its Addendum dated 12.02.2024 submitted by Respondent as approved by the Committee of Creditors in its 12th CoC meeting convened on 28.03.2024 and the voting concluded on 03.04.2024 with 99.02% voting in favour; b. Declare that upon approval of the Resolution Plan by this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority, the provisions of the Resolution Plan shall be binding on the Company, its creditors, guarantors, members, employees, Statutory Authorities and other stakeholders in accordance with Section 31 of the Code, and shall be given effect IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited to and implemented pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority; c. Approve the constitution of Monitoring Committee as per Clause VIII of the approved Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors; d. Approve and grant Reliefs and Concessions sought under Clause XV of the Resolution Plan by the Resolution Applicant;”

X X X

I.A. No. 5628/2025 “a) Allow the present application and take on record the Addendum dated 10.11.2025 submitted by M/s Saviour Builders Private Limited (“SRA”) to the Resolution Plan dated 28.03.2024, and direct that the said Addendum shall form an integral part of the Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) in its 12th meeting held on 28.03.2024 with 99.02% voting share and further approved with 80.10 % voting share in the 24th CoC meeting concluded on 15.11.2025. b) Allow the present application and take on record revised Form H dated 15.11.2025 c) Pass an order under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 approving the Resolution Plan dated 28.03.2024, read with the Addendum dated 10.11.2025, as approved by the CoC under Section 30(4) of the Code.

2. Stating succinctly, the CP(IB) No. 296(PB)/2023 was filed by Nimble Credit Cooperative Society (hereinafter, referred to as the “Financial Creditor”) initiating CIRP qua Bulland Realtors Private Limited (hereinafter, referred to as the “Corporate Debtor”) in terms of the provision of Section 7 of IBC, 2016. The Corporate Debtor was admitted to CIRP in terms of order dated 31.07.2023 passed by this Tribunal and Mr. Ashish Singh was IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited appointed as IRP, who was later appointed as RP vide order dated 09.10.2023 passed by this Tribunal.

3. As per the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Code r/w Regulation 6(1) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the Applicant issued public announcement in Form-A on 11.08.2023 in two newspapers, viz. Financial Express (English) and Jansatta (Hindi), inviting claims with proof thereof from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. A copy of the aforementioned public announcement is enclosed as Annexure A-2 to the application. In compliance of Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the Applicant also informed statutory authorities including Banks, ROC, Regional Director etc. The Applicant also informed Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “GNIDA”) about the commencement of CIRP through email on 18.08.2023 and thereafter on 11.09.2023 requested it to file its claim however, it did not receive any claim from GNIDA.

4. On receipt of claims pursuant the Applicant constituted the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred to as “CoC”) in terms of the provision of Section 21 of the Code which was taken on record by this Tribunal in terms of the order dated 11.09.2023. The CoC qua Corporate Debtor consisted of the following financial creditors:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

5. The Applicant/RP got the assets of the Corporate Debtor valued in terms of Regulation 27 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 by the following Registered Valuers:-

6. The Applicant/RP published Invitation for Expression of Interest on 13.10.2023 in prescribed viz. FORM-G in the Financial Express (English) and Jansatta (Hindi) in circulation in Delhi NCR, in terms of Section 25(2)(h) of the Code read with Regulation 36A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. In response to the publication, 04 (four) PRAs namely Saviour Builders Private Limited, Radhey Krishna Technobuild Private Limited, One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Solutrean Building Technologies Private Limited could submit their EoI and M/s DGA IB Resolution LLP was appointed by CoC for due diligence with respect to the PRAs.

7. Further, in terms of Section 29 read with Regulation 36 of the CIRP Regulations, the RP prepared the Information Memorandum (‘IM’) and apprised the CoC that the Corporate Debtor is a registered MSME before the commencement of CIRP and thus, Mr. Sunil Nagar is eligible to submit EoI alongwith 04 (four) PRAs. Subsequently, in view of further claims received by the Homebuyers, the CoC was reconstituted.

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

8. According to the RP, he apprised the CoC about the compliance report qua 02 (two) resolution plans received and confirmed that both plans are compliant in terms of the relevant provisions of the Code. However certain observations were highlighted by Applicant in the compliance report and the same were communicated to the representatives of the PRAs for submitting rectified/revised Resolution Plans.

9. In the 11th and 12th CoC meeting, the Applicant could apprise the CoC regarding the compliance report of 02 (two) revised/amended Resolution Plans received by the PRAs viz. Radhey Krishna Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. & Saviour Builders Pvt. Ltd. and found resolution plan submitted by Radhey Krishna Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. as conditional and non-compliant plan and resolution plan by Saviour Builders-Pvt. Ltd. as compliant in terms of the relevant provisions of the IBC, 2016 and Regulations made thereunder. Further, the Applicant apprised the CoC about the Payment Plan as per the proposed resolution plan, evaluation matrix and comparative chart. Feasibility and Viability of the Resolution Plan, Liquidation estimate as per Regulation 39B of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, and sale of Corporate Debtor as a going concern under clause (e) or clause (f) of Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 were discussed in the 12th CoC meeting and the CoC approved the Resolution Plan of Saviour Builders Pvt. Ltd by 99.02% voting share. Copy of minutes of 12th CoC meeting dated 28.03.2024 alongwith addendum is on record at Annexure A-23. The relevant excerpt of the addendum to minutes

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

10. The relevant excerpt of brief contours of the Resolution Plan and addendum as given in the application reads thus:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

11. It is averred in the application that there is a change in management and control of the CD which satisfies the conditions stipulated under Section 32A of the Code, giving the benefit of immunity under Section 32A thereby.

12. The SRA has submitted affidavit/undertaking under Section 29A of the Code which reads thus:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

13. It is borne out of the pleading and record that the letter of intent dated 04.03.2024 was issued and Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- was issued by HDFC Bank to the Applicant on 10.04.2024. The same is on record at Annexure A-24 of the application which reads thus:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

14. The Resolution Plan dated 11.01.2024 alongwith Addendum dated 12.02.2024 submitted by the SRA, which stands approved by the CoC, has been enclosed as Annexure A-25 of the application. The compliance certificate in prescribed Form- H, in terms of Regulation 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, has been filed by RP and enclosed as Annexure A-26 of the application.

15. The summary proposal of payment by Resolution Applicant to all stakeholders is envisaged in Clause 5 of the Addendum which reads thus:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

16. As regards the capital restructuring of the CD, the resolution plan provides that the RA will acquire the control of CD by way of merger and amalgamation of CD pursuant to which the Merged entity shall issue shares to existing shareholders or promoters of the RA and the entire equity shareholding of the Merged Entity shall be held and owned by the current

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited shareholders of the RA. The details of the same can be found in Vol. V at page 928 of the I.A. No. 15/ND/2024 which reads thus:-

17. As per Regulation 37 of CIRP Regulations, 2016, a Resolution Plan shall provide for the measures, as may be necessary, for insolvency resolution of Corporate Debtor for maximisation of the value of CD’s assets. In this respect, it is relevant to refer to Page 51 of Addendum dated 12.02.2024 at Page 791 of the application which reads thus: -

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

18. Regarding the source of funds, in clause XIII of Addendum dated 12.02.2024, the SRA has stated that it shall infuse funds through equity/debts from the internal and external sources of fund available with the Resolution Applicant. Furthermore, the SRA has also stated that its net worth is approximately Rs. 90,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Crores Only) and it does not foresee any shortage of funds to deliver this project. The relevant excerpt of clause XIII at page 935 of the application reads thus: - “XIII. SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS Sources of Funds: The resolution applicant understands that currently cash available with corporate debtor is not adequate to meet the requirements. The Resolution Applicant hereby proposes for upfront infusion of funds through equity/debts from the internal and external sources of fund available with the Resolution Applicant. Also, it is pertinent to mention here that the net worth of Resolution Applicant is approximately Rs. 90,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Crores Only) and the Resolution Applicant don't foresee any shortage of funds to deliver this project.

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Further, after initial infusion of funds Resolution Applicant will be in a position to generate cashflows from unsold inventories and that will fulfil the requirement of the fund flow in the project.”

19. Regulation 38(1B) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 provides that a Resolution Plan shall include a statement giving details as to whether the SRA or any of its related parties have failed to implement or contributed to the failure of implementation of any other resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority at any time in the past. In this regard, a declaration has been given by the SRA in clause X of the plan (Addendum dated 12.02.2024) at page 799 of the application, which reads thus: -

20. Regulation 38(2)(a) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 provides that the plan should contain provisions for the term of the plan and its implementation schedule. In this respect, clause VIII of the plan (Addendum) states that its implementation shall commence immediately from the Effective Date and shall be carried in accordance with the steps set out in the plan. Clause VIII of the plan reads thus:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

21. As per Regulation 38(2)(b) of CIRP Regulations, 2016, the Resolution Plan should provide for the management and control of the business of the IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Corporate Debtor during its term which can be found at Page 932 of the application which read thus: -

22. As per Regulation 38(2)(d) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, a resolution plan shall provide the manner in which the proceedings with respect to avoidance transactions and fraudulent/wrongful trading is to be pursued and the manner in which the proceeds, if any, from such proceedings shall be distributed. In this regard, it is apposite to note that as per Form – H given by the Applicant/RP, one application is filed under Section 50 of the Code which is pending adjudication. The Clause XIX of the Plan (Addendum) reads thus:-

23. Further, the Resolution Plan under clause XX also demonstrates declaration to the effect that the plan is not in contravention of provisions of the applicable law and also as how the plan is feasible and viable. The said clause reads thus: -

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

24. As per Regulation 38(4) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the CoC may consider the requirement of a Monitoring Committee for the implementation of the plan. In this respect, the plan (Addendum) states the following:-

25. It is pertinent to note that in Clause XV of the Resolution Plan (Addendum), the SRA has sought a number of reliefs and concessions from this Tribunal which reads thus:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

26. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant/RP also preferred application bearing I.A. No. 568/ND/2025 for bringing Addendum dated 10.11.2025 submitted by M/s Saviour Builders Private Limited (“SRA”) approved by CoC with 80.01% voting share in 24th CoC meeting dated 15.11.2025 and also revised Form-H dated 15.11.2025 on record. The salient plea espoused in the application is that:- i. Prior to initiation of CIRP on 26.11.2022, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (“GNIDA”) cancelled the lease deed executed with CD on 31.01.2023. ii. The Applicant/RP filed a revision application on 11.10.2023 under Section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, read with Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, before the Principal Secretary, Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Uttar Pradesh, challenging the cancellation order dated 31.01.2023. iii. Principal Secretary passed order dated 18.11.2024 disposing of the Revision Petition filed by the Applicant. Aggrieved by which Writ Petition No. WRIT-C No. 166/2025 was preferred before the High Court of Allahabad seeking stay on the operation of the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary as well as a stay order of cancellation dated 31.10.2023 issued by GNIDA. iv.

Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad constituted committee under Chairmanship of Chief Executive Officer, GNIDA, Gautam Buddha Nagar with direction to the Chairman to submit his report on or before 15.07.2025 and status quo was maintained till next date of hearing. IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited v. The meeting under Chairmanship of CEO, GNIDA could be convened on 02.07.2025, 05.07.2025 and 10.07.2025 which was attended by RP, SRA and AR of Homebuyers. Subsequently, report dated 10.07.2025 was submitted to Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. vi. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 30.10.2025 disposed of the Writ with certain directions which reads thus:- “(i) The order of respondent no.1, dated 18.11.2024, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, without considering the effect of the Government Order dated 21.12.2023, is set aside. (ii) The amount of 25% as agreed between the parties under the agreement dated 10.07.2025, and deposited before this Court is directed to be released in favour of respondent no.2, on an appropriate application being made before the Registrar General of this Court.

(iii) The remaining amount under the agreement dated 10.07.2025 shall be paid by the respondent no.4 to the respondent no.2, within one year as provided under the Government Order dated 21.12.2023, in two six monthly installments. (iv) Respondent no.2 shall proceed to restore the lease deed, in favour of petitioner company, in accordance with clause 17 of the Government Order dated 21.12.2023. (v) The deposit made by respondent no.4, to pay out the dues of respondent no.2, would not create any indefeasible right in his favour or for the approval of the resolution plan submitted by him, which is subject matter to be considered in accordance with law by the Adjudicating Authority under the relevant provisions of IBC.

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited (vi) Any observation by this Court shall not be considered as an opinion on the merits of insolvency resolution process under the provisions of IBC.”

vii. The RP then informed the CoC that pursuant to the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad (ibid), the total amount payable to GNIDA will now be Rs. 80,01,72,612 (Rupees Eighty Crores One Lakh Seventy-Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve only) against what it was in Resolution approved in 12th CoC meeting for a sum of Rs. 55,00,00,000 (Rupees Fifty-Five Crores only). viii. Pursuant to development in the matter, SRA vide email dated 10.11.2025 submitted an Addendum dated 10.11.2025 to the resolution plan dated 28.03.2024, setting out the revised mechanism for settlement of GNIDA’s enhanced dues in accordance with the Government Order dated 21.12.2023 and the agreement dated 10.07.2025 which stood approved by CoC in 24th CoC meeting held on 12.11.2025.

27. The relevant excerpt of the Addendum dated 10.11.2025 to resolution plan reads thus:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

28. The Applicant/RP has also submitted revised Form- H indicating therein the fair value, liquidation value and manner as to how it has dealt with the interests of all stakeholders in compliance of the Code and the Regulations made thereunder. The relevant excerpt of revised Form- H reads thus: - IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited x x x

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

29. The compliance of the Resolution Plan with the provisions of the Code as well as the Regulations made thereunder, as stated in Form H, reads thus:-

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

30. The amended performance guarantee with expiry date being 09.04.2027 is on record at page 111 of I.A. No. 5628/ND/2025.

31. In the wake of the revised Form H submitted by the Applicant/ RP, we note that the fair value and liquidation value of the CD is Rs. 119,79,00,000/-and Rs. 95,99,00,000/- respectively and the realisable amount under the plan is Rs. 487,59,30,081.4/- which is in excess of the fair value of the Corporate Debtor, assessed by the valuators appointed by the RP in terms of the provisions of Regulation 27 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 r/w Regulation 35 thereof.

32. In terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019], it is the subject matter of commercial wisdom of CoC to take decision regarding the amount of bid offered by SRA and the scope for this Tribunal to interfere on such issues is negligible. The above view was also reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3224

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited of 2020) wherein the Hon’ble Court ruled that the scope of examination of the application for approval of Resolution Plan by this Tribunal is confined to the provisions of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016. Para 153 of the Judgment reads thus:- “153. Regulation 38(3) mandates that a Resolution Plan be feasible, viable and implementable with specific timelines. A Resolution Plan whose implementation can be withdrawn at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, is inherently unviable, since open-ended clauses on modifications/withdrawal would mean that the Plan could fail at an undefined stage, be uncertain, including after approval by the Adjudicating Authority. It is inconsistent to postulate, on the one hand, that no withdrawal or modification is permitted after the approval by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31, irrespective of the terms of the Resolution Plan; and on the other hand, to argue that the terms of the Resolution Plan relating to withdrawal or modification must be respected, in spite of the CoC’s approval, but prior to the approval by the Adjudicating Authority.

The former position follows from the intent, object and purpose of the IBC and from Section 31, and the latter is disavowed by the IBC’s structure and objective. The IBC does not envisage a dichotomy in the binding character of the Resolution Plan in relation to a Resolution Applicant between the stage of approval by the CoC and the approval of the Adjudicating Authority. The binding nature of a Resolution Plan on a Resolution Applicant, who is the proponent of the Plan which has been accepted by the CoC cannot remain indeterminate at the discretion of the Resolution Applicant. The negotiations between the Resolution Applicant and the CoC are brought to an end after the CoC’s approval. The only conditionality that remains is the approval of the Adjudicating Authority, which has a limited jurisdiction to confirm or deny the legal validity of the Resolution Plan in terms of Section 30 (2) of the IBC. If the requirements of Section 30(2) are satisfied, the IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Adjudicating Authority shall confirm the Plan approved by the CoC under Section 31(1) of the IBC.”

33. In the recent judgement of Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi and Ors., (2026) ibclaw.in 109 SC, Hon’ble SC has categorically mentioned that commercial wisdom of COC is paramount. The relevant excerpt of the judgement reads thus:- “12. Having concluded that neither of the issues raised by the appellants establishes any modification of the Resolution Plan or any material irregularity in the conduct of the RP, the challenge stands stripped of its factual foundation. What remains is, in substance, a challenge to the commercial decision taken by the CoC. The IBC leaves no scope for judicial intervention even here.

12.1 It has been the consistent view of this Court that the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be interfered with by the NCLT, the NCLAT or this Court as was held in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank, [(2019) ibclaw.in 08 SC] : (2019) 12 SCC 150 as under: “55. Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2), the enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution plan provides : (i) the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a specified mannerin priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed manner, (iii) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor, (iv) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan, (v) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force, (vi) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. The Board referred to is established under Section 188 of the I&B Code. The powers and functions of the IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Board have been delineated in Section 196 of the I&B Code. None of the specified functions of the Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating the manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought not to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. The subjective satisfaction of the financial creditors at the time of voting is bound to be a mixed baggage of variety of factors. To wit, the feasibility and viability of the proposed resolution plan and including their perceptions about the general capability of the resolution Applicant to translate the projected plan into a reality. The resolution Applicant may have given projections backed by normative data but still in the opinion of the dissenting financial creditors, it would not be free from being speculative. These aspects are completely within the domain of the financial creditors who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. xxx 58. Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to the power exercisable by the resolution professional under Section 30(2) of the I&B Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with Section 31(1) of the I&B Code.

No other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code, which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in the I&B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers.” (Underlining by us) 12.2 Similarly, in Kalyani Transco, decided on 26.09.2025, a three- Judge Bench of this Court held as follows: “179. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the legislature purposefully did not include a means to challenge the commercial wisdom exercised by the CoC. This makes a challenge to the same non – justiciable. It has been further held that a challenge cannot be raised against the decision making of the CoC unless and until the grounds for challenge as given in the Code IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited are satisfied.

Any interference in the paramount objective of the CoC of exercising its commercial wisdom would amount to the Court rewriting the law and going against the very objectives of the IBC. 180. We are therefore of the opinion that in the present matter as well, the CoC exercised its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan whereby the Appellant – Jaldhi was classified as a contingent creditor and such a decision is deemed to be non – justiciable by this Court in view of K. Sashidhar (supra) which has been subsequently followed in a catena of judgments. The NCLT, and the NCLAT have also approved the Resolution Plan, and in light of the settled principle of law, we find no question of law being raised by the Appellant – Jaldhi and therefore, the appeal filed by it is liable to be dismissed.” (underlining by us) 12.3 We note the observations in Essar Steel India Limited, clarifying that once the NCLT is satisfied that the CoC has applied its mind to the statutory requirements spelt out in sub-section (2) of Section 30 it must necessarily pass the resolution plan, as under: “73. …Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of.

If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal.” (Underlining by us)

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

12.4 We also note the observations in Pratap Technocrats Private Ltd. vs. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited, [(2021) ibclaw.in 148 SC] : (2021) 10 SCC 623 wherein this Court categorically held as follows: “29. The jurisdiction which has been conferred upon the adjudicating authority in regard to the approval of a resolution plan is statutorily structured by sub-section (1) of Section 31. The jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the requirements which are specified in sub-section (2) of Section 30 have been fulfilled. This is a jurisdiction which is statutorily-defined, recognised and conferred, and hence cannot be equated with a jurisdiction in equity, that operates independently of the provisions of the statute. The adjudicating authority as a body owing its existence to the statute, must abide by the nature and extent of its jurisdiction as defined in the statute itself. 44. …the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority cannot extend into entering upon merits of a business decision made by a requisite majority of the CoC in its commercial wisdom. Nor is there a residual equity based jurisdiction in the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority to interfere in this decision, so long as it is otherwise in conformity with the provisions of IBC and the Regulations under the enactment.” (Underlining by us) 12.5 The issue is no longer res integra, the law having been settled that the commercial wisdom of the CoC enjoys primacy and cannot be supplanted by judicial review. Neither the NCLT, nor the NCLAT nor even this Court is empowered to substitute its assessment in place of the commercial decision arrived at by a requisite majority of the CoC.

13. The appeals before us typify the growing strategic use of the judicial system by unsuccessful resolution Applicants, who seek to reopen almost every commercial decision under the guise of procedural impropriety. This converts the corporate resolution process into a protracted adversarial contest and erodes

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited the value of the Corporate Debtor. Such an approach incentivises delay, rent-seeking, and strategic obstruction and is fundamentally inconsistent with the economic logic and statutory design of the IBC.

13.1 In the present case, the Resolution Plan stands approved by both the NCLT and the NCLAT and has since been implemented, leaving absolutely no scope for intervention by this Court.”

34. In the wake of the aforementioned, once the CoC comprising of homebuyers has approved the Resolution Plan, there is hardly any scope for us to interfere with the same. As far as the issue of reliefs and concessions which fall in the jurisdiction of different Government Authorities, and/or are subjected to the provisions of different laws for the time being in force are concerned, it is made clear that the amount payable by the SRA in terms of the plan to different creditors, stakeholders, and to keep the Corporate Debtor as a going concern cannot be subject to any condition, assumptions, relief/concessions and/or qualification. It also needs to be underlined that the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC, 2016 mandates the Resolution Applicant to obtain the necessary approval required under any law for the time being in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016. In terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Code even during the period of CIRP, no default in payment of current dues is a precondition for continuation of the License, Permit, Registration and similar rights. Thus, even during the moratorium period, some of the facilities forming part of the reliefs and concessions sought are made available to the CD only when there is no default in payment of the current dues. On approval of the Resolution IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Plan, the SRA/CD cannot be put on a better footing by exempting it from paying its legitimate dues under the law. For the sake of convenience, the explanation below Section 14 of the code is extracted below:- “14. Moratorium.—(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely: - ….. (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a licence, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;”

35. In any case, in terms of the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC 2016 read with Regulations 6, 6A, 7, 8, 8A, 9 and 9A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, all the claimants such as Operational Creditors, Financial Creditors, Creditors in Class, Workmen and Employees and other Creditors can raise their claims before the IRP/RP. The claims are dealt with by IRP in terms of the provisions of Section 18(1)(b) of the IBC, 2016 and by RP in terms of the provisions of Section 25(1)(b) thereof read with Regulations 12A, 13 and 14 of the IBBI

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Thereafter, the RP prepares an Information Memorandum in terms of the provisions of Regulation 36(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Memorandum contains inter alia a list of creditors containing the range of creditors, the amounts claimed by them, the amount of their claim admitted and the security interest if any in respect of such claims. As has been provided in Regulation 36(1) of the Regulations (ibid), the Information Memorandum is required to be submitted in electronic form to each member of CoC, on or before 95th day from the Insolvency commencement date. As has been provided in Regulation 36A of the Regulations the RP publish brief particulars of the invitation for Expression of Interest in Form G of Schedule I to the Regulations at the earliest i.e. not later than 60th day from the Insolvency commencement date, from interested and eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants to submit Resolution Plans. As can be seen from Regulation 36B of the Regulations, the RP shall issue Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix (IMEM) and request for Resolution Plans, within 5 days of the date of issue of provisional list of eligible Prospective Resolution Applicants (required to be issued under Regulation 36A(10) of the Regulations). It is with reference to such Information Memorandum Evaluation Matrix that the RP issues request for Resolution Plan. The request for Resolution Plan details each step in the process and the manner and purposes of interaction between the Resolution Professional and the Prospective Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Plan submitted after consideration of the IMEM and RFRP is then examined by the Committee of Creditors. Nevertheless, it needs to satisfy the requirements of IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Regulation 37 and 38 of the extant Regulations. Once the plan is approved by the CoC, in terms of the provisions of Regulations 39 of the aforementioned Regulations, it virtually becomes a contract entered into between the CD represented through RP, SRA and the Creditors of the CD. On being approved by this Adjudicating Authority, by operation of Section 31(1) of the Code, the plan becomes binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors (including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being enforced such as authorities to whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. Thus, Section 31(1) of IBC, 2016, takes care of most of the relief/concession/waiver solicited by the Resolution Applicant.

36. Besides, in terms of the provisions of Section 32A, for an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the liability of the CD ceases and the CD is not liable to be prosecuted from the date of approval of Resolution Plan by this Adjudicating Authority, if the Resolution Plan results in change of management or control of the CD to a person who was not promotor or in the management or control of the CD or a related party of such a person or a person with regard to whom the concerned Investigating Agency has reason to believe that he had abated or conspired for the commission of the offence and has submitted or filed a report or a complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court. In such cases, where the prosecution is instituted against the CD, during CIRP, the CD stands discharged qua the same from the date of approval of the IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Resolution Plan. Nevertheless, every person who was a designated partner as defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, “an officer who is in default” as defined in Clause (60) of Section 2 of Companies Act, 2013 or was in any manner in charge of, or responsible to the CD for the conduct of his business or associated with the CD in any manner and was directly or indirectly involved in the commission of an offence as per the report submitted or complaint filed by Investigating Agency shall continue to be liable to be prosecuted and punished for such an offence committed by the Corporate Debtor notwithstanding the Corporate Debtors’ liability ceases after approval of the plan.

37. In the wake of the provisions of Section 32A(2), no action is taken against the property of the Corporate Debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the CD, where such property is covered under Resolution Plan approved by this Authority under Section 31, which result in the change in the control of the CD to a person who was not a promotor or in the management or control of the Corporate Debtor or related party of such person or a person with regard to whom the Investigating Agency has reason to believe that he had abated or conspired for commission of the offence and has submitted or filed a report or complaint to the relevant statutory authority or Court.

38. The action against the property of the Corporate Debtor as referred to in Section 32A of the Code includes the attachment, seizure, retention or confiscation under such law as may be applicable to the Corporate Debtor. IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

One may also be not oblivious of the fact that in the backdrop of provisions of Section 31(3)(a) of the IBC, 2016, the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 ceases to have effect. In sum and substance, the SRA/CD would be entitled to no other relief/concession/waiver except those, which are available to it as per the provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016.

39. In the backdrop of aforementioned factual position, discussion, analysis and findings, the IA-15/ND/2024 filed by the Applicant/ RP for approval of the Resolution Plan is allowed and IA-5628/ND/2025 preferred for taking addendum to resolution plan is disposed of. The Plan submitted by the SRA, certified by the RP by issuing a certificate in prescribed form viz. Form “H” as also the Addendum/Affidavit thereto (supra) are approved.

40. As can be seen from the definition thereof given in clause (k) of Regulation 2 of I&B (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, liquidation value means the estimated realisable value of the assets of the CD if the Corporate Debtor were to be liquidated on the insolvency commencement date. However, as far as fair value is concerned, in terms of the definition thereof given in clause (hb) of the aforementioned regulations, it means the estimated realisable value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor if they were to be exchanged on the insolvency commencement date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction after proper marketing and where the parties had acted knowledgably, prudently and without compulsion. The fair value and IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited liquidation value are minimum assessed values respectively. As far as the plan value is concerned, the same has to be at a competitive rate.

In such cases, where the Resolution Plan comes up for approval after years of commencement of CIRP, the competitive plan value has to be there. In the present case, the CIRP commenced on 31.07.2023 and we are examining the application for approval of Resolution Plan in July 2026 i.e. after three years. During the period, there is change in the price of land and the RP should not try to confine the plan value near or around the fair value assessed on insolvency commencement date. In Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7590-7591 of 2023), Hon’ble Supreme Court viewed that the claim submitted by NOIDA should not be overlooked and though NOIDA may not be treated as secured financial creditor, but it may still be treated as secured creditor. In Assets Care & Construction Enterprise Limited vs. Mr. Viswanadha Saram (Resolution Professional of Arena Superstructure Private Limited) and Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 949 of 2023] and in Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ayyagiri Viswanadha Sarma & Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.)

No. 1117 of 2023], Hon’ble NCLAT viewed that NOIDA is entitled to a treatment different from an ordinary operational creditor and being a land owning agency, it has first charge over the project land. In the present case, the GNIDA did not file its claim before RP and it has been offered lump-sum amount of Rs. 80,01,72,612/-. Such amount cannot be treated as an amount offered in terms of the claim. Besides, the entitlement of land owning agency qua the project land owned by it cannot be allowed to be compromised lightly. As has been noted hereinabove, the aforementioned IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited amount offered to GNIDA is not as per its claim in CIRP. In the circumstances, we need to issue appropriate direction regarding entitlement of GNIDA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta (2021) 7 SCC 209, held that the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC is broad and residuary.

It can adjudicate questions having a nexus with the insolvency resolution process and issue appropriate directions to ensure the objectives of the Code are achieved. Relevant excerpt reads thus:- "87. The residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC provides it a wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to the insolvency resolution proceedings. If the jurisdiction of the NCLT were to be confined to actions prohibited by Section 14 of the IBC, there would have been no requirement for the legislature to enact Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC. Section 60(5)(c) would be rendered otiose if Section 14 is held to be the exhaustive of the grounds of judicial intervention contemplated under the IBC in matters of preserving the value of the corporate debtor and its status as a 'going concern. We hasten to add that our finding on the validity of the exercise of residuary power by the NCLT is premised on the facts of this case. We are not laying down a general principle on the contours of the exercise of residuary power by the NCLT. However, it is pertinent to mention that the NCLT cannot exercise its jurisdiction over matters dehors the insolvency proceedings since such matters would fall outside the realm of IBC."

41. In State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5023-2024 of 2024), Hon’ble Supreme Court viewed that the NCLT should exercise

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited discussion as regard to altering the binding terms of the Resolution Plan and the time line must be kept at a minimum. 42. As a sequel, we issue the following directions: - i. The approved Resolution Plan shall become effective from the date of passing of this Order and shall be implemented strictly as per the term of the plan and implementation schedule given in the Plan; ii. The SRA/CD would be entitled to no other reliefs/concessions/waivers except those are available/permissible to it as per the provisions of Section 31(1) and 32A of IBC, 2016. The SRA is at liberty to approach the relevant authorities who would consider these claims as per the provisions of the relevant law in an expeditious manner; iii. Following steps would be taken in terms of the resolution plan: - SL. NO. STEP TO BE TAKEN TIMELINE 1. Approval of proposed Resolution Plan by X Hon’ble NCLT 2. Payment of CIRP Costs X+6 months 3. Payment to the dissenting Financial X+6 months Creditors 4. Payment to the Operational Creditors- X+6 months Employees, Government Departments and Other Operational Creditors 5. Payment to GNIDA as set out in plan X+1 years (2 six months instalment) 6. Payment to unsecured Financial Creditors X+2 years iv.

The order of the moratorium in respect to the corporate debtor passed by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 shall cease to have effect from the date of passing of this Order; v. The SRA shall act in terms of the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC 2016; IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited vi. The Monitoring Committee shall file progress report regarding implementation of the Plan before this Tribunal, every month; vii. The RP shall forward all the records relating to the conduct of the CIRP and the Resolution Plan to the IBBI for its record and database; viii. The RP shall also forthwith send a copy of this order to the participants and the Resolution Applicant. He would also send a copy of this order to the ROC concerned within 15 days of this order; ix. The RP shall intimate each claimant about the principle or formulae, as the case may be, for payment of debts under the Plan. x. In the event, the net profit accrued to SRA/CD qua the project in question turn in excess of 10% of plan value, the additional profit will go to GNIDA to the extent of the value of the assets to be assessed as on date of submission of the plan.

The amount would be over and above Rs. 80,01,72,612/-. xi. The proceed of outcome of PUFE application would go to the creditors as per the provisions of Section 53 of IBC, 2016. For the purpose, the GNIDA would be treated as Secured Operational Creditor.

43. The Court Officer and Resolution Professional (RP) shall forthwith make available/send a copy of this Order to the CoC and the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) for immediate necessary compliance.

44. A copy of this order shall also be sent by the Court Officer and Applicant to the IBBI and RoC for their record.

IA-5984/2024:

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

45. The captioned application has been preferred by GNIDA with following prayer:- “i. Reject the Resolution Plan put up for its approval in I.A. No. 15/2024 qua Plot No.GH/02B-1, Sector 10, Greater Noida, U.P; and ii. Direct the Respondents for exclusion of Plot No.GH/02B-1, Sector 10, Greater Noida, U.P. from the alleged Resolution Plan in view of the cancelation order dated 31.01.2023 issued by the Applicant Authority; iii. Quash and set aside all actions/decisions taken by the IRP/RP/COC/SRA against the property bearing Plot No.GH/02B1, Sector 10, Greater Noida, U.P. area 19000.00/-Sqa. Meter in view of the cancelation order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the Applicant-Authority; iv. Direct the IBBI to examine the work and conduct of Respondent- Resolution Professional and take such action as it may deem fit and proper.”

46. In the wake of order dated 30.01.2025 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad; Addendum dated 10.11.2025 approved by CoC in its 22nd meeting; and letter issued by GNIDA dated 01.03.2026 restoring lease deed cum allotment letter in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad order, nothing survives in the application. Accordingly, IA-5984/2024 stands disposed of.

IA-3610/2024: 47. The captioned had been preferred by one PRA namely Radhey Krishna Technobuild Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant) praying following relief:- “a. Allow the present Application; and IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited b. Set aside the resolution passed by the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor at the 11th CoC meeting, whereby the Resolution Plan of the Applicant was rejected on the basis that the plan was conditional and hence non-compliant. c. Declare the constitution of the CoC as invalid since it does not include GRV and GNIDA, who are amongst the largest creditors of the Corporate Debtor having rights in CoC; d. Direct the Resolution Profession to re-constitute the Committee of Creditors to include GNIDA and GRV as the key members; and e. Grant interim stay on the approval of Resolution Plan by this Hon’ble Tribunal till the disposal of this application.”

48. It is noted that approval of Resolution Plan is commercial wisdom of the CoC which is paramount, non-justiciable, and immune to judicial substitution. Such is the view, taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court including K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta, and most recently Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi and Ors.

49. Besides, as can be seen from written submission filed by RP, it is contended that the implementation of resolution plan submitted by the Applicant was contingent upon restoration of the sub-lease deed by GNIDA and grant of approvals/NOCs by GNIDA, RERA and other governmental authorities and the performance guarantee was also subject to approvals are granted by the GNIDA. The resolution plan being conditional and non-compliant in terms of Regulation 36(4A) of CIRP Regulations and failure of IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Applicant to remove the condition on multiple occasion, the RP rejected Applicant’s resolution plan.

50. Regarding commercial wisdom of CoC and fate of objections to resolution plan, a reference may be made to recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court could caution against the growing tendency of unsuccessful resolution applicants to seek a “second shot” through litigation by portraying commercial decisions of the CoC as procedurally flawed. The relevant excerpt of the judgment reads thus:- “14. Before parting, we wish to add a few words of caution. The IBC represents a conscious legislative choice to privilege speed, certainty, and creditor-driven decision-making over exhaustive judicial scrutiny. Experience shows that unsuccessful bidders will always try to spin commercial decisions of the CoC as procedurally faulty in order to secure a second shot through litigation by filing applications or making representations. However, courts need to remain vigilant against any temptation to expand the scope of review beyond the narrow boundaries prescribed by the IBC.”

51. As the CoC in exercise of its commercial wisdom has approved resolution plan submitted by SRA namely Saviour Builder Private Limited, this Adjudicating Authority has limited scope to interfere therewith. The application viz. IA-3610/2024 stands disposed of.

IA-1143/2024: 52. The captioned application could be preferred by the Applicant, Mr. Sheesh Pal (acting as the agency/assignee of Mr. Krishan Pal Singh) under Section 60(5) of the Code, challenging the rejection of the claim filed in FORM IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

CA vide e-mail dated 25.08.2023 before the RP under the category of a class of creditors (homebuyers). The prayer made in the captioned application is as follows:- a. “Allow the present application and set aside the opinion formed by the Respondent vide email dated 13.12.2023. b. Direct the Respondent to admit the claim filed by the Applicant in the proper category of Financial Debt and include the Applicant as part of CoC. c. or alternatively, direct the Resolution Professional to take into consideration the claim of the applicant submitted in Form CA dated 24.08.2023 on merits.”

53. The Applicant submitted that Mr. Krishan Pal Singh was a Director and 10% shareholder of the Corporate Debtor and pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) dated 25.08.2018 executed between Mr. KP Singh, Director of Corporate Debtor, and Secur Portfolios Pvt. Ltd., Mr. KP Singh transferred his entire 10% shareholding comprising 1,02,000 equity shares and resigned from the Directorship of the Corporate Debtor in consideration of the allotment of 59,020 sq. ft. of saleable inventory or 43 flats in the project “Bulland Calisto”. The Applicant submitted that although the CD was a confirming party to the MOU, it failed to issue the allotment letters, builder-buyer agreements and other documents necessary to effectuate the transaction. Subsequently, the agency of Secur Portfolios Pvt. Ltd. was terminated, and Mr. Sheesh Pal was appointed as the assignee/agent of Mr. KP Singh under an MOU dated 04.12.2020.

54. It is further submitted that CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was initiated vide order dated 31.07.2023 of this Tribunal. The Applicant filed its IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited claim in Form CA as a Financial Creditor in a class (Homebuyer) claiming allotment of the aforesaid 43 flats valued at ₹15,02,05,900/- together with interest. The RP vide email dated 28.08.2023 sought additional documents including PAN, AADHAAR, allotment letter, builder-buyer agreement, payment receipts, bank statements and a copy of the MOU. The Applicant submits that the relevant documents and necessary clarifications, including the MOU and supporting records, were already furnished and it was specifically explained that the claim was founded on the MOU and not on a conventional builder-buyer transaction. However, the RP repeatedly asked for documents and ultimately rejected the claim vide email dated 13.12.2023 on the ground that the requisite clarifications and supporting documents had not been received. It is the case of the Applicant that subsequent communications dated 03.01.2024 and 14.01.2024 requesting reconsideration and collation of the claim on merits remained unanswered.

55. The Applicant contends that the rejection of its claim is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Code the RP mechanically insisted upon production of documents such as allotment letters, builder-buyer agreements and payment receipts while ignoring the MOU dated 25.08.2018 and other contemporaneous records evidencing that the transfer of shares was made in consideration of the allotment of the saleable inventory by the Corporate Debtor. 56. It is the case of the Applicant that the transaction constitutes a financial debt having the commercial effect of borrowing under Sections 5(6), 5(7) and 5(8)(f) of the Code, thereby entitling the Applicant to be treated as a Financial IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Creditor in a class. In support of the contentions, it relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble NCLAT in G. Sreevidhya v. Karismaa Foundations Pvt. Ltd. (Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 494 of 2018) and M/s Dynepro Private Limited v. V. Nagarajan (Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 229 of 2018), as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 of 2018), to contend that RP has no adjudicatory powers and is only required to receive, verify and collate claims and submitted that by rejecting the Applicant's claim instead of merely verifying and collating the same, the RP exceeded the scope of his statutory jurisdiction, acted contrary to the settled position of law, and illegally excluded the Applicant from the CoC. 57. The Respondent/RP in its reply submitted that Mr. Krishan Pal Singh had transferred his 10% shareholding prior to the execution of the MOU dated 25.08.2018 and under the said MOU, it was agreed that in consideration of the transfer of his rights, saleable inventory measuring 59,020 sq. ft. would be allotted to Secur Portfolios Pvt. Ltd. (SPPL), which had been authorised by Mr. Krishan Pal Singh to act on his behalf. It further submitted that subsequent revocation of SPPL's authority and appointment of the Applicant as assignee vide letter dated 04.12.2020 was an internal arrangement, executed without the consent or knowledge of the Corporate Debtor or its suspended management, and the alleged authority letter neither conferred any authority to file the present claim nor constituted a valid transfer of rights in accordance with law.

58. The Respondent further submitted that pursuant to the commencement of CIRP on 31.07.2023 and the public announcement dated 11.08.2023, the Applicant submitted a claim in Form CA claiming to be a IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Financial Creditor in a class. However, upon scrutiny when the Respondent/ RP sought documents such as the allotment letter, builder-buyer agreement, payment receipts and bank statements to substantiate the claim, the Applicant failed to furnish the requisite documents. Consequently, the claim was rejected vide email dated 13.12.2023 on account of non-submission of the documents necessary to establish the Applicant's status as a Financial Creditor in a class.

59. It is the RP's case that the Applicant is neither a creditor nor an allottee of the CD within the meaning of the Code. The Respondent contends that there is no direct transaction between the Applicant and the CD and alleged authority letters dated 25.08.2018 and 04.12.2020 are unregistered internal documents without legal sanctity and are incapable of transferring any right, title or interest in immovable property. It is also contended that no allotment letter, builder-buyer agreement, possession letter or evidence of payment was ever issued or executed in favour of Mr. KP Singh, SPPL or the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim the status of a homebuyer or Financial Creditor in a class merely on the basis of the MOU.

60. The RP also contends that the MOU dated 25.08.2018 was merely records a settlement for the exit of Mr. KP Singh from the management and shareholding of the CD and does not create any financial debt as the it never received any monetary consideration from Mr. KP Singh, there was no disbursement against the consideration for the time value of money, and therefore the essential ingredients of a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code are absent. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

Supreme Court in Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Ltd. to contend that the element of disbursement is indispensable for constituting a financial debt. Lastly, the RP submitted that the MOU itself remained unperformed as the contemplated transfer of shares in favour of Mr. Rajneesh Nagar, as envisaged therein, never took place. It is further submitted that the Applicant also failed to establish that any enforceable rights in the saleable inventory were transferred to him.

61. We have perused the material on record. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether the RP was justified in rejecting the claim submitted by the Applicant in Form CA as a Financial Creditor in a class and whether the Applicant has established a prima facie right for admission of such claim.

62. The Applicant's case proceeds on the premise that Mr. Krishan Pal Singh transferred his entire 10% shareholding and resigned from the Directorship of the CD pursuant to the MOU dated 25.08.2018. According to the Applicant, the consideration for such transfer was the allotment of 59,020 sq. ft. of saleable inventory (43 flats) in the project “Bulland Calisto”. It is contended that the CD, being a confirming party to the MOU, failed to issue allotment letters and builder-buyer agreements despite the Applicant having performed his obligations. Consequently, the Applicant submits that the absence of such documents cannot be used against him while considering his claim. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT in Mahesh Kumar Panwar v. Neelam Singh to contend that a settlement agreement can constitute the basis of a financial debt.

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

63. On the other hand, the RP contends that the Applicant failed to produce the primary documents ordinarily required for admission of a claim as a Financial Creditor in a class, namely allotment letter, builder-buyer agreement, payment receipts and bank statements and in the absence of such documents, the Applicant failed to establish that he was an allottee or homebuyer under the Code. It is further argued that the MOU merely records a settlement regarding the exit of a shareholder from the CD and does not create a financial debt.

64. The RP need to go by the books of accounts of the CD and not by any such document which was not available on the record of the CD. In the wake, the application is found misconceived and devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/- Sd/- (ATUL CHATURVEDI) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

IA-15/ND/2024, IA-1143/ND/2024, IA-3610/ND/2024, IA-5984/ND/2024 and IA-5628/ND/2025 in CP(IB)-296(PB)/2023 Nimble Credit Cooperative Society Limited vs. Bulland Realtors Private Limited

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free