Approval of Resolution Plan - Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH (COURT – II) Item No. 225 IB-380/ND/2020 IA-3035/ND/2025, IA-5072/ND/2025, IA-40/ND/2025, IA-5026/ND/2025, IA-1182/ND/2025, IA-1193/ND/2025, IA-1396/ND/2025 IN THE MATTER OF: IIFL Private Equity Fund … Applicant/Petitioner Versus Three C Green Developers Pvt Ltd … Respondent Under Section: 7 of IBC, 2016 Order delivered on 05.06.2026 CORAM: SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ SH. RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI HON’BLE MEMBER (J) HON’BLE MEMBER (T) PRESENT: For the Applicant : For the Respondent : Mr. Pranav Gupta, Ms. Sanchita Jain, Ms. Unnati Chauhan and Mr. Ansh Kulshrestha, Advocates for R-6 in IA-1193/ND/2025. For the NOIDA : Adv. Rachit Mittal, Adv. Parish Mishra, Adv. Kanishk Raj, Adv. Srishti Agrawal, Adv. Shivansh Bansal For the SRA : Adv. Saurabh Kalia, Adv. Rishi Singhal For the RP : Sr. Adv. Rashmi Chopra, Adv. Mrinal Harshwardhan, Adv. Mohd. Shahrukh Qureshi, Adv. Rituparna Patra, Adv. Shikhil Suri, Adv. Sakshi Aura Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode ORAL ORDER IA-3035/ND/2025: The prayer made in the captioned application reads thus: “Allow the present application and direct the Respondent to admit the claim of the applicant to the tune of Rs. 3,62,20,33,460/-.

2. During the course of hearing, Mr. Rachit Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant i.e. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority submitted that he has received instructions from his client i.e. NOIDA in terms of e-mail dated 05.06.2026 to the effect that the addendum to the resolution plan passed by the CoC is acceptable to it. A copy of e-mail produced by Mr. Rachit Mittal before the Tribunal reads thus:

3. In view of the stand taken by Mr. Rachit Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, the present application is disposed of with the direction that the CoC/Corporate Debtor/Monitoring Committee/RP/SRA would be bound by the terms of the addendum and the amount referred to in the addendum would be payable to the NOIDA. The order dated 25.05.2026 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 10159 of 2025 inter alia enclosed with the addendum is also taken on record.

IA-5072/ND/2025: As prayed by Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the RP on instruction from the briefing Counsel, the IA is dismissed as withdrawn.

IA-5026/ND/2025: The application is disposed of in terms of the order passed in IA-3035/ND/2025.

IA-1182/ND/2025, IA-1193/ND/2025 & IA-1396/ND/2025: Our attention is drawn to Clause-12 of Form H, wherein provisions have been made regarding pursuing the present application. The Clause-12 reads thus:

We are sanguine that the applications shall be pursued in accordance with the aforesaid provisions contained in the Resolution Plan and the proceeds arising from the outcome thereof shall accrue to the creditors. Nevertheless, to be cautious and concerned regarding pursuing the avoidance applications as also distribution of proceed of outcome thereof, we request Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta former president CESTAT (MoB No. 9415215086) to monitor prosecution of the aforementioned applications as also distribution of proceed of outcome of the application to the creditors. The advocates to pursue the applications would be appointed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta in consultation with SRA. The SRA will pay due professional fee to Mr. Dilip Gupta and the advocates engaged /to be engaged to pursue the aforementioned applications and the same would be fixed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta in consultation with SRA/Monitoring Commitee.

List the IAs on 27.07.2026. IA-40/ND/2025: The captioned application has been preferred under Section 30(6) of IBC, 2016 seeking approval of the Resolution Plan. The prayer made in the application reads thus:- “Approve the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.” 2. The factual matrix, as delineated in the application is reproduced thus:

3. Our attention is drawn to Clause-4.5 of the Resolution Plan, which contains provisions regarding the treatment of the claims of various stakeholders as well as the CIRP Costs. Clause 4.5 of the Resolution Plan reads thus:-

4. The resolution plan also contains a provision dealing with the issue of dissenting creditor. The relevant excerpt of the plan reads thus:

5. The Resolution Plan also provides for the constitution of a Monitoring Committee to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 30(2) (c) read with Section 30(2) (d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The relevant excerpt of the plan reads thus:-

6. We could also see from the plan and addendum thereto that it contain the provisions regarding the term of Resolution Plan and implementation schedule in terms of Regulation 38(2)(a) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 as also the implementation provisions. The relevant excerpt thereof reads thus:

XXXX

XXXX (As given in the addendum dated 29.05.2026)

7. The plan as also the addendum dated 29.05.2026 to the Resolution plan contained the provisions regarding funding and sources of funds to be available for implementation of the Resolution plan. The provisions in this regard reads thus:-

XXXX

8. Although the SRA has sought relief and concession, but has also given an undertaking that the plan will be implemented irrespective of the fact that any relief and concession is granted. It is also seen from the addendum dated 29.05.2026 to the resolution plan that there is a provision made therein regarding pursuing the avoidance, preferential and fraudulent transaction applications. The relevant excerpt of the addendum to the Resolution Plan in this regard, reads thus: “14. Avoidance / Preferential / Fraudulent Transaction Recoveries All pending or identified avoidance, preferential and fraudulent transaction applications under Sections 43, 45, 49, 50 and 66 or any other applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including any future applications required to be filed pursuant to directions of the Monitoring Committee or the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority, shall continue to be pursued by the Resolution Applicant post-approval of the Resolution Plan. The net proceeds, recoveries or realisations arising from such avoidance & preferential transaction proceedings shall, after deduction of actual legal and recovery costs, be applied for the benefit of the Secured Financial Creditors and shall be distributed among them in such manner as may be approved by the CoC /Monitoring Committee / Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority. However, any monetary or other recovery from fraudulent transaction relating to the illegal transfer of subsidiary companies shall be for the benefit of the Corporate Debtor and may be used for project revival, implementation and preservation of assets of the Corporate Debtor.”

9. The RP has enclosed with the plan application, an affidavit given by the SRA in terms of the provisions of Section 29A of IBC, 2016. The relevant excerpt of the affidavit reads thus:-

10. The RP has enclosed with the plan a copy of the performance guarantee given by the RTGS (bank transfer). The details regarding the performance guarantee as given with the plan application reads thus:-

XXXX

11. The Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), in the Resolution Plan, has also addressed the cause of default, the viability and feasibility of the Resolution Plan, its effective implementation, and other requirements stipulated under Regulation 38(3) of the CIRP Regulations. It would be in the fitness of things to extract the relevant excerpt from the plan, which reads thus:- “i. Regulation 38(3)(a) : Addressing the Cause of Default The insolvency was triggered due to financial constraints, delays in land demarcation and possession by NOIDA Authority, disputes with stakeholders including farmers, and lapses in management. The Plan effectively addresses these through financial infusion, land possession directives, stakeholder resolution, governance reforms, and project completion. ii. Regulation 38(3)(b) : Viability and Feasibility The Plan includes robust financial projections with infused equity and debt, and is supported by a professional management team to ensure timely completion and profitability. Projected cash flows demonstrate viability for both business revival and debt servicing. iii. Regulation 38(3)(c): Effective Implementation A detailed implementation roadmap has been provided. A Monitoring Committee shall be constituted to oversee execution, compliance, and progress reporting, as elaborated in the Implementation Schedule section. iv. Regulation 38(3)(d): Approvals and Timelines The Plan identifies and provides timelines for obtaining governmental and statutory approvals, including contract renewals and waiver of penalties/defaults up to the Cut-Off Date. v. Regulation 38(3)(e): Capability of RA The Resolution Applicant has the requisite financial strength, sector-specific expertise, and implementation capabilities. Provisions have been made for hiring qualified personnel, project management teams, and ensuring statutory compliance.”

12. As can be seen from the annexure to the certificate given by the RP in form of Form-H, the plan is inconsonance with the provisions of Section 25(2)(h), 29A, 30, 31 and Regulations 38 & 39 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The relevant excerpt of the annexure reads thus:-

13. The certificate furnished by the Resolution Professional also contains details regarding the distribution/realisation of amounts under the Resolution Plan among the various stakeholders. The relevant clause of the certificate in this regard reads thus:-

14. We could also see that that the value offered under the Resolution Plan is higher than the fair value of the Corporate Debtor. The relevant excerpt of the Form H, wherein fair value, liquidation value and the realizable amount has been mentioned reads thus:-

15. Initially, NOIDA had preferred IA-3035/ND/2025 and IA- 5026/ND/2025 opposing the Resolution Plan. While considering the objection raised by the NOIDA, we passed detailed order dated 27.02.2026. The order reads thus:-

16. Nevertheless, after we passed the aforementioned order, the matter could land before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and while considering the Special Leave to Appeal (C) with SLP(C) No.10159/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed order dated 25.05.2026. The relevant excerpt of the order reads thus:- “52 & 69.3 Learned Solicitor General, based instructions given by respondent NOIDA, submitted that respondent NOIDA has passed a resolution containing 19 resolution points based on proposals made by the Resolution Applicant. The resolution points, as aforementioned, are taken on record and annexed as Annexure B herein and shall form part of the record.

The proposals petitioner(s)/resolution given by the applicant(s) and the comments made by respondent - NO NOIDA along with the communication letter No.Noida/Comm./2026/963 dated 22.05.2026 sent to the learned counsel for respondent NOIDA (Annexure C herein) have already been taken on record and shall form part and parcel of this order. Appropriate orders will have to be passed by respondent- NOIDA in terms of the agreed terms. We make it clear that to the aforesaid extent, the impugned order of the High Court stands set aside. However, the issue with respect to the direction issued by the High Court to the CBI inquiry will be argued and heard separately. The application for intervention being IA No.160788/2026, though opposed, stands allowed. The statement of Mr. Devdatt Kamat, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenor, that they have not consented to the above proposal stands recorded. List the matters for further hearing on 30.09.2026.” Here, it would not be out of context to make reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2025) ibclaw.in 364 HC dated 24.02.2025, wherein Hon’ble High Court could take note of the present corporate debtor and the fraud committed in respect thereof at large scale. In para 69 of the order, Hon’ble High Court could note that illegalities committed by builders (sub-lessee) in connivance with Noida Authority Snow-ballad into a major land scam, still no action had been taken against the builders/allottees/sub-lessee and the officers of the Noida Authority who were involved in the large scam. Paras 64 to 152 of the judgment reads thus:-

17. When this Tribunal may endeavour to timely resolve the issues raised before it, it may not turn blind eyes to massive and significant fraud committed in respect of Three C Group Companies, as noted by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (ibid). Thus, suitable and appropriate measures need to be taken by us, while examining the application for approval of the Resolution Plan. In the wake, we will have to pass appropriate order to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to the books. 18. As espoused by Mr. Rachit Mittal, Ld. Counsel for Noida, CoC considered an addendum to the resolution plan and made provision regarding payment to the NOIDA. The addendum to the plan reads thus:-

19. As has been noted hereinabove in the order passed in IA-3035/ND/2025 and in the wake of addendum, the NOIDA has no objection to the application preferred for approval of Resolution Plan or to the resolution plan. 20. Besides, we note that 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 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 Adjudicating Authority shall confirm the Plan approved by the CoC under Section 31(1) of the IBC.” 21. In the recent judgement of Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi and Ors., (2026) ibclaw.in 109 SC, Hon’ble SC has categorically noted 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 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 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) 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 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.”

22. 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 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: - (a) …..

(b) ….. (c) ….. (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;” (Emphasis Supplied) 23. 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 (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 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. 24. 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 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. Besides, in due deference to the order passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (supra), there would be no immunity in favour of anyone whosoever he/she/it may be from facing the CBI/other investigation/action. 25. It is directed that the SRA shall implement the plan as per the timelines indicated in the Resolution Plan. 26. In the backdrop of aforementioned factual position, discussion, analysis and findings, the IA-40/2025 filed by the Applicant/ RP for approval of the Resolution Plan is allowed. The Plan submitted by the SRA, certified by the RP by issuing a certificate in prescribed form viz. Form “H”, is approved.

27. As a sequel, we issue the following directions: - i. Operation of the Resolution Plan in terms of the order dictated in the open court, will abide by the outcome of IA-2659/ND/2026 (supra), as at the time of the dictation of the order, it was made clear to the parties that in the event of notice of any such development or material, which may come to the notice of the bench, clarification would be sought from the parties. Nevertheless, in the event of vindication of the order as pronounced in the open court, the plan would be implemented strictly as per the term of the plan and implementation schedule as given in the Plan read with addendum thereto. 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. No extra/additional period would be available to SRA to implement the plan. iv. The SRA would not be entitled to any concession on the basis force majure or otherwise and would be liable to implement the plan strictly as per timeline approved by the CoC, read with the addendum, subject to the clarification that the SRA will not be entitled to any additional period of 180 days and would be bound by the time scheduled originally approved by the CoC. v. The amount payable to NOIDA would be Rs. 212.11 Cr or more which shall be paid as per the terms of the addendum, prepared after consultation with NOIDA and as a compliance of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

vi. The present order would abide by the outcome of SLP (C. No. 10159/2025), pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. vii. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta (Mob No. 9415215086) former Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court is appointed as the Observer to oversee the implementation of the approved Resolution Plan, prosecution of PUFE applications, to ensure that no land which does not form part of the assets of the CD is encroached or included in the assets of CD and the perpetrators referred to in para 69 of the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court are brought to the books by pursuing the pending proceedings and/or initiating the fresh required proceedings against them before investigating agencies viz. CBI/ED/SFIO effectively. It goes without saying that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the scope of investigation may extend to any of the Three C Group Companies. The Observer shall keep a close watch on the functioning of the Monitoring Committee and the affairs pertaining to the implementation of the Resolution Plan so as to ensure that the process is carried out in a fair, transparent, and lawful manner and that no irregularity is committed by any stakeholder.

In the event the Observer notices any act, omission, or transaction which, in his opinion, warrants further scrutiny or investigation, he shall be at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the appropriate authorities, including but not limited to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or any other competent investigating agency, in accordance with law. It is clarified that the present directions shall not dilute, override, or otherwise affect the operation and implementation of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 15604 of 2021 read in consonance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 10159 of 2025, which shall continue to operate in accordance with law. The fee/remuneration of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta would be determined as per decision to be taken by discussion between Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta, Monitoring Committee and SRA. viii. Following steps would be taken in terms of the resolution plan: - SL. STEP TO BE TAKEN TIMELINE NO. FROM DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER 1. Constitution of Monitoring Committee Within 5 days 2. Payment of CIRP Cost Within 90 days 3. Payment to Financial Creditors Within 27 months 4. Payment to Operational Creditors Within 36 (Statutory/ Government Dues) months subjected to conditions of addendum dated 29.05.2026 5. Payment to Operational Creditors Within 27 (other Operational Creditors) months 6. Change in Management of CD Within 90 days including appointment of new directors ix.

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; x. The SRA shall act in terms of the provisions of Section 31(4) of IBC 2016; xi. The Monitoring Committee shall file progress report regarding implementation of the Plan before this Tribunal, every month; xii. 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; xiii. 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; xiv. The RP shall intimate each claimant about the principle or formulae, as the case may be, for payment of debts under the Plan; 28. 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. 29. A copy of this order shall also be sent by the Court Officer and Applicant to the IBBI and RoC for their record 30. The order as above was dictated in the open court on 05.06.2026.

Indubitably, the transcription of an order dictated in the open court may take some time. Before the dictation given in the open court could be transcripted and the order was finalised, IA-2659/ND/2026 could be listed before Regular Bench on 12.06.2026 i.e. the last date before the vacations. The counsels for the parties entered appearance and requested that the IA should be listed before the bench which dictated the order dated 05.06.2026 in the application preferred for approval of the Resolution Plan. Thus, parties were fully aware and conscious about the pendency of the aforementioned IA and the next date fixed therein. The order dated 12.06.2026 passed in the IA reads thus:-

31. As could be ruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of U.P., (1953) 2 SCC 468, no draft order becomes judgment merely because the same is dictated in the open court or drafted. It attains finality after being signed by the Members of the Bench. The Paras 11 and 12 of the order reads thus:- “11. An important point therefore arises. It is evident that the decision which is so pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the court as it is at the time of pronouncement. We lay no stress on the mode or manner of delivery, as that is not of the essence, except to say that it must be done in a judicial way in open court. But however it is done it must be an expression of the mind of the court at the time of delivery. We say this because that is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the court performs after the hearing. Everything else uptil then is done out of court and is not intended to be the operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the judgment in motion. Judges may, and often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgments either, however heavily and often they may have been signed. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the court. That is what constitutes the "judgment".

12. Now up to the moment the judgment is delivered, the Judges have the right to change their mind. There is a sort of locus poenitentiae, and indeed last minute alterations often do occur. Therefore, however, much a draft judgment may have been signed beforehand, it is nothing but a draft till formally delivered as the judgment of the court. Only then does it crystallise into a full-fledged judgment and become operative. It follows that the Judge who "delivers" the judgment, or causes it to be delivered by a brother Judge, must be in existence as a member of the court at the moment of delivery so that he can, if necessary, stop the delivery and say that he has changed his mind. There is no need for him to be physically present in the court but he must be in existence as a member of the court and be in a position to stop delivery and effect an alteration should there be any last minute change of mind on his part. If he hands in a draft and signs it and indicates that he intends that to be the final expository of his views it can be assumed that those are still his views at the moment of delivery if he is alive and in a position to change his mind but takes no steps to arrest delivery. But one cannot assume that he would not have changed his mind if he is no longer in a position to do so. A Judge's responsibility is heavy and when a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture; also, a question of public policy is involved. As we have indicated, it is frequently the practice to send a draft, sometimes a signed draft, to a brother Judge who also heard the case. This may be merely for his information, or for consideration and criticism. The mere signing of the draft does not necessarily indicate a closed mind. We feel it would be against public policy to leave the door open for an investigation whether a draft sent by a Judge was intended to embody his final and unalterable opinion or was only intended to be a tentative draft sent with an unwritten understanding that he is free to change his mind should fresh light dawn up upon him before the delivery of judgment.

32. In Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of W.B., 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 3952 Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta could view thus:- “7. It is, however, of common occurence that after a judgment or order is dictated in open Court, that Judgment or order undergoes some cosmetic changes undertaken by the Presiding Judge only. If it is the judgment or order of a Division Bench, such cosmetic changes can be a collective exercise. If the two Hon'ble Judges choose to express individual opinions, their respective opinions may be subjected to such changes. Only after such changes are incorporated in the transcribed copy of the order or judgment, and thereafter is signed, the judgment or order attains its final form. Dealing with the aspect of a judgment attaining the final form under the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been held in the case of State Bank of India (supra):- “…Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with judgment and decree. Rule 1 explains when a judgment is pronounced. Sub-rule (1) provides that the court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in an open court either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the court shall fix a day for that purpose of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.

Sub-rule (3) provides that the judgment may be pronounced by dictation in an open court to a shorthand writer [if the Judge is specially empowered (sic by the High Court) in this behalf]. The proviso thereto provides that where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such corrections as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced and form a part of the record. Rule 3 provides that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open court at the time of pronouncing it and when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by Section 152 or on review. Thus, where a judgment is reserved, mere dictation does not amount to pronouncement, but where the judgment is dictated in open court, that itself amounts to pronouncement. But even after such pronouncement by open court dictation, the Judge can make corrections before signing and dating the judgment. Therefore, a Judge becomes functus officio when he pronounces, signs and dates the judgment (subject to Section 152 and power of review)….”” 33. In the present case, once before the order could be transcripted and we could put our signature thereon, the aforementioned application viz. IA-

2659/ND/2026 came to be listed for consideration. With the filing of the application, the Members of the Bench had option either to list the application filed for approval of Resolution Plan for being spoken to along with the aforementioned IA preferred for rejection of the Resolution Plan or to decide the IA first before giving finality to the order dictated in the open court. Nevertheless, the stakeholders, particularly, the counsel who was present before the court did not hesitate in sending e-mail dated 23.06.2026 which the Court Officer produced before us. The e-mail reads thus:-

34. The stakeholders did not rest their and the Court Officer could place two other e-mails dated 30.06.2026 before us. The first e-mail was by Mr. Satish Kumar Luthra who claims himself as affected homebuyers of Lotus Isle Project developed by M/s Three C Properties Pvt. Ltd. i.e. one of the Three C Group Companies. The time mentioned at the e-mail is 10:32 AM. The time mentioned at another e-mail is 11:43:41 AM. The same is on behalf of Mr. Anoop Taneja, who has claimed himself to be a homebuyer in M/s Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. viz. the present matter. The text of both the e-mails cast aspersions on the Tribunal and the Members of the Bench and is an act of intimidation with the judicial process as also constitute contempt of court. It would not be gainsaid that efforts are made to overreach the judicious and fair outcome of IA- 2659/ND/2026. In the wake of the order passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, directing CBI inquiry in the matter of allotment of land, we cannot take any application filed in the present proceedings casually. We will take appropriate view in respect of such conduct of the e-mail senders. The judicial procedure provides remedies to the parties. Extra judicial communication sent to the Members of the Bench through Court Officer or otherwise amounts to intimidation with the judicial process and can certainly be perceived as intimidation. 35. As the parties could not relent and continued sending extra judicial communication to NCLT, to bring a quietus to such communications as also to sub-serve the interest of justice, we vindicate and authenticate the order dictated in the open court, making the same subject to outcome of the IA-2659/ND/2026 scheduled to be heard on 03.07.2026.

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

Upasana/Hetash