M/S Art Constructions Private Limited vs Mr. Udayraj Patwardhan & Ors

[Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Court No. III, New Delhi in I.A. No. 1817 of 2023 in C.P. (IB) No. 1083 of 2018]

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S ART CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THROUGH MR. AKSHAY DHAWAN, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, A-61, VIVEK VIHAR-II, NEW DELHI-110095 ...Appellant(s)

Versus

1. UDAYRAJ PATWARDHAN RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL ADEL LANDMARKS LTD B-292, CHANDRA KANTA COMPLEX, SHOP NO. 8, NEW METRO PILLAR NO. 161, NEW ASHOK NAGAR NEW DELHI- 110096 EMIAL: CA.UDAYRAJ@VIAJURE.IN

2. CLASS OF CREDITORS OF HOMEBUYERS THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. INDER PAUL SINGH OBEROI IBBI/IPA-002/IP- N00518/2017-2018/11560 MVKINI LAW FIRM, 6/39, JUNGPURA (B), NEW DELHI, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, 110014 EMAIL: IPSO24@GMAIL.COM

3. ASSETS CARE AND RECONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 14TH FLOOR, EROS CORPORATE TOWER NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110019, NEW DELHI, DELHI, INDIA - 110019. EMAIL: ACRE.ARC@ACREINDIA.IN

4. INDO JATALIA HOLDINGS LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 202/203, 76, VIJAY BLOCK, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI - 110092 EMAIL: indojataliaholding@gmail.com 5. CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BLOCK NO. A/1003, WEST GATE, NEAR YMCA CLUB, SUR NO. 835/13 S.G. HIGHWAY, MAKARBA, AHEMDABAD, GUJARAT - 380051 EMAIL: info@cfmarc.in

6. IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 2 PLOT NO. 22, BLOCK G BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400051 EMAIL: ifinsecretarial@ilfsindia.com

7. BANK OF BARODA BARODA BHAWAN, 7TH FLOOR, R.C. DUTT ROAD, ...Respondent(s) VADODARA - 390007 EMAIL: cs.ho@bankofbaroda.bank.in Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Manvi Jain, Ms. Astha Singh, Ms. Heena, Ms. Niharika, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. P. Nagesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Ms. Apoorva Chowdhury, Advocates for R1 Ms. Ruchika Darira, Advocate for R7 Mr. I.P.S Oberoi, Advocate for AR of Class of Creditor (R-2) Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate for R8 Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R4 Ms. Shruti Munjal, Advocate for R5 Mr. Aslan Ahmed, Ms. Kheyali Singh, Advocates for R3.

JUDGMENT

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code 2016 ("IBC" in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated

27.02.2026 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order") passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Court-III)

in I.A. No. 1817 of 2023 in C.P.(IB) No. 1083 (PB) of 2018. By the impugned

order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed IA No. 1817 of 2023 filed Page 2 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 before it by the Resolution Professional-Respondent No.1 and remanded the

resolution plan dated 23.06.2022 alongwith Addendum dated 23.08.2022

submitted by the Appellant-Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA" in short)

to the Committee of Creditors ("CoC" in short) for its reconsideration.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant-SRA has come up in appeal.

2. Coming to the brief facts of the case, the Corporate Debtor-M/s Adel

Landmarks Ltd. was admitted into CIRP on 05.12.2018. The Interim

Resolution Professional who was subsequently confirmed as the Resolution

Professional ("RP" in short) had invited EoI in Form-G. The Appellant-SRA

had also submitted their plan which underwent several rounds of

deliberations and negotiations with the CoC to be finally approved with a vote-

share of 82.66% in the 27th meeting of the CoC held on 15.09.2022. The RP

thereafter issued a Letter of Intent ("LoI" in short) in favour of the SRA who

in turn furnished the Performance Bank Guarantee on 13.12.2022. The RP-

Respondent No.1 submitted IA No. 1817 of 2023 before the Adjudicating

Authority seeking approval of the resolution plan approved by the CoC. The

Adjudicating Authority rejected the prayer contained in IA No. 1817 of 2023

and remanded the resolution plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in the

light of developments in the following five areas:

(i) treatment of projects/properties which are under attachment by virtue

of Provisional Attachment Order ("PAO" in short) dated 09.01.2026

issued by the Directorate of Enforcement ("ED" in short).

(ii) treatment of properties belonging to Mr. K.H. Khan and Mrs. Shaheda

Begum in Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "Khan Property").

Page 3 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026

(iii) treatment in respect of 30 flats in Project Era Divine Court.

(iv) treatment of the licenses issued by Department of Town and Country

Planning ("DTCP" in short).

(v) reconsideration of the pending claims of home-buyers who had not

submitted their plan earlier.

Aggrieved by the above directions contained in the impugned order, the

present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-SRA.

3. Making submissions on behalf on the Appellant, Shri Krishnendu Datta

and Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Ld. Sr. Counsels submitted that all the grounds on

which the Adjudicating Authority had remanded the resolution plan back to

the CoC for reconsideration were untenable in that they relate to matters

which have either been already considered at length by the CoC or continue

to remain pending for adjudication before some other competent fora of law

or relate to proceedings which stand protected by operation of Section 32A of

the IBC. It was vehemently contended that when the CoC had taken a well-

considered commercial decision with more than requisite majority to approve

the resolution plan of the Appellant, which plan not having been objected to

by any stake-holder including the Financial Creditors, the Adjudicating

Authority clearly transcended its jurisdiction by directing that a concluded

commercial decision by the CoC be revisited again by the CoC without

recording any specific grounds of statutory non-compliance or material

irregularity in the conduct of the CIRP process. It was also submitted that the

Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order remanding the plan back

to the CoC almost seven years after the initiation of the CIRP of the Corporate

Page 4 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 Debtor in 2018 and almost four years after the approval of the resolution plan

by the CoC thus infusing an element of uncertainty into the resolution process

which is otherwise supposed to be a time-bound exercise. Submission was

pressed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it is contrary to

the settled law of impermissible interference with the commercial wisdom of

the CoC as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar Vs

Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150 and Committee of Creditors of

Essar Steel India Limited Vs Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2019) SCC

OnLine SC 1478.

4. Making submissions on behalf of the Resolution Professional-

Respondent No.1, Shri P. Nagesh Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the

resolution plan of the SRA which had been approved by the CoC with majority

vote-share was a statutorily compliant plan which has been remanded back

to the CoC for reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority when there was

no pressing need for making any such remand. It was also submitted that the

grounds on which the plan had been remanded back to the CoC comprised of

issues which were already within the knowledge of the CoC and stood duly

considered by the CoC and hence remitting the matter back to the CoC by the

Adjudicating Authority was not only a redundant exercise but also without

authority of law. Dilating on each of the five observations made by the

Adjudicating Authority, it was submitted that the issue of Khan property

being remanded back to the CoC was totally unwarranted as the plan itself

recognised the pendency of litigation in respect of the Khan Property and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court after granting interim protection in favour of the

Page 5 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 Khans had already given directions to the RP to go ahead with the CIRP

proceedings. The CoC having taken note that the plan dealt with the Khan

Property appropriately in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and had subjected the Khan Property to final orders of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the CoC had nothing further to look into in respect

of treatment of Khan property in the plan. As regards the subject property

which had come under PAO of the ED, the attachment order having been

issued subsequent to the approval of the plan by the CoC, it was contended

by the RP that this could not constitute a valid ground for remanding back of

the plan since Section 32A of the IBC protects the properties provisionally

attached by the ED and the SRA was eligible to claim benefit under Section

32A of the IBC. The third ground on which the plan had been remanded back

was with respect to 30 flats in Project Era Divine Court which was the subject

matter of IA No. 5717 of 2024 on which claims had been submitted by BPTP

Ltd. When the Adjudicating Authority had themselves dismissed IA No. 5717

of 2024 by which BPTP had objected to the plan and the RP having given an

undertaking that the said flats would remain protected and on an appeal filed

against this order by BPTP, this Appellate Tribunal had directed the

Adjudicating Authority to proceed with the plan approval application, there

was no cogent basis to make the subject property a ground for remand. The

fourth ground on which the Adjudicating Authority had remanded the

resolution plan back to the CoC were in respect of 13 licenses issued by DTCP.

However, when the resolution plan of the SRA provided treatment for DTCP

claims including fees for renewal of licenses for which provision had already

been earmarked which aspect was also considered by the CoC while approving Page 6 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 the resolution plan, it defies logic as to why the plan was remanded on this

count. The last observation made by the Adjudicating Authority for the CoC

to consider pending claim applications of home-buyers, it was pointed out

that the plan clearly provided that home-buyers who have not filed claims

shall be treated at par with the home-buyers who have filed their claims.

Hence even this was no cogent reason for the Adjudicating Authority to

remand the resolution plan to the CoC. It was also submitted that subsequent

to the passing of the impugned order, the RP had placed the impugned order

dated 27.02.2026 for consideration of the CoC in its 35th CoC meeting held

on 13.03.2026. It was further added that the CoC was also kept apprised that

an appeal had already been filed by the Appellant-SRA against the impugned

order. The CoC after due deliberations reiterated its earlier decision approving

the resolution plan while also expressing their support to the appeal preferred

by the SRA.

5. Shri IPS Oberoi, Authorised Representative on behalf of Respondent

No.2-Class of Creditors submitted that 4500 allottees who had filed their

claims as allottees constituted the largest Financial Creditor in the CoC as a

Class of Creditors. The resolution plan of the SRA had been approved by the

CoC in its 27th meeting was also approved by this Class of Creditors who

constituted the single largest constituent of the CoC with 41% vote-share. The

Class of Creditors belonging predominantly to the middle-class strata of

society and included senior citizens were looking forward to a time-bound

resolution process with the expectation of getting ownership and possession

of units. However, remanding back the plan would once again delay the

Page 7 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 resolution at a time when the home-buyers have already waited for nearly 14

years. In the absence of early approval of the resolution plan, irreparable

injury and prejudice would be caused to the creditor in class. It was therefore

urged that this Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may direct

the Adjudicating Authority to consider the resolution plan alongwith its

various clarifications/addendum as submitted by the SRA in a time-bound

manner.

6. The Ld. Counsels representing the Respondent No.3-ACRE and

Respondent No.4-Indo Jatalia Holdings Ltd. assailing the impugned order also

supported the resolution plan of the SRA. It was contended that the points

on which the Adjudicating Authority has desired re-examination of the

resolution plan have already been settled or pending before the competent

forum of law or has already been adequately addressed in the plan leaving no

room for consideration. It was contended that when the resolution plan had

been exhaustively discussed in the CoC meetings and a decision was taken

by the CoC to approve the plan after taking into account the commercial

feasibility, viability and value maximisation aspect, the Adjudicating

Authority could not have returned the plan back to the CoC when there was

no material irregularity or contravention of any law.

7. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned

Counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

8. The short question for our consideration is whether the five grounds on

which the Adjudicating Authority had remanded the plan approved by the

Page 8 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 CoC with requisite majority was in accordance with the statutory framework

of IBC and the well settled legal precept of the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

9. To answer the above question that we have outlined for ourselves, we

need to first look at the five grounds basis which the CoC has been directed

by the Adjudicating Authority to revisit and reconsider the plan approved by

it and also examine the tenability of these grounds in the eyes of law.

10. One of the five grounds which had attracted the attention of

Adjudicating Authority was the ongoing litigation in respect of Khan

properties belonging to K.H. Khan and Shaheda Begum. From material on

record and averments made, the Khans had filed IA No. 4648 of 2020 before

the Adjudicating Authority seeking exclusion of certain parcels of land from

the Information Memorandum and CIRP of Corporate Debtor. The

Adjudicating Authority had dismissed IA No. 4648 of 2020 on 30.04.2024 but

had directed the RP on 05.06.2025 to file an affidavit to keep the Khan

Property outside the purview of the resolution plan. Accordingly, the RP had

filed three affidavits on 11.06.2025, 15.07.2025 and on 19.09.2025 in

compliance. Even when the matter had reached the portals of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, we notice that the Hon'ble Apex Court after granting interim

protection in favour of the Khans had concurrently given directions to the RP

to go ahead with the CIRP proceedings. Thus even after the matter got agitated

at the highest judicial fora, we do not find any embargo having been placed

on the continuation of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor at any stage. The CoC

during its deliberations also took conscious notice of the fact that the plan

not only acknowledged the pendency of litigation but had incorporated

Page 9 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 necessary safeguards by keeping the treatment of the Khan property as an

asset subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The CoC having taken note that the plan dealt with the Khan

Property appropriately in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in that the plan had subjected the property to final orders of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the CoC was

not required from any angle to look further in the matter of treatment of Khan

property in the plan.

11. The next area of concern which led the Adjudicating Authority to

remand the plan back to the CoC relates to the subject property which had

come under PAO of the ED. It is the contention of the RP that the attachment

order had been issued subsequent to the approval of the plan by the CoC. It

was also emphatically asserted that the attachment was only provisional and

not final in nature as borne out from ED's own affidavit dated 02.02.2026. It

was further contended by the RP that in terms of Section 32A of the IBC, once

a Resolution Plan is approved and there is a change in management of the

Corporate Debtor, the Corporate Debtor and its properties stand protected

from prosecution and attachment for offences committed prior to the

commencement of the CIRP. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power and Steel

Limited & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 1808 of 2020 which has clearly

recognized the effect of Section 32A of the IBC in protecting the assets of the

Corporate Debtor from enforcement proceedings arising out of prior offences

once the Resolution Plan stands approved and such property is covered under

Page 10 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31

of the IBC. Further, it was pointed out that this Hon'ble Tribunal in Vantage

Point Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Gaurav Misra, Resolution

Professional of Alchemist Infra Realty Ltd in CA(AT)(Ins.) No. 1495 of

2024 reiterated that attachments or enforcement actions in relation to prior

offences cannot impede the implementation of a Resolution Plan once the

statutory protections under the IBC are triggered. We also notice that the RP

had kept apprised the CoC of the ED proceedings. It is also the contention of

the SRA that it had submitted its plan after conducting due diligence and

after verifying all the information contained in the Information Memorandum

and it was aware that as SRA it was eligible to claim benefit under Section

32A of the IBC which provides them protection in respect of properties

provisionally attached by the ED. In this backdrop of RP having kept apprised

the CoC of the ED proceedings and that the SRA, before submitting his plan,

was also aware of the PAO on having done his share of due diligence, mere

existence of PAO cannot be seen to render the resolution plan incapable of

implementation. The Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate the

statutory protection provided under Section 32A of the IBC and the binding

judicial precedents governing the interplay between insolvency proceedings

and enforcement actions. We therefore fail to appreciate the concern

expressed in the impugned order of the need to remand the matter back again

to the CoC on this ground.

12. The third ground on which the Adjudicating Authority remanded back

the plan were 30 flats in Project Era Divine Court on which claims had been

Page 11 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 submitted by BPTP Ltd. On the claim made by BPTP on the 30 flats, it was

submitted by the RP that in the absence of registration of any charge on these

flats, no valid or enforceable security interest can be said to have existed on

those flats. In any case, BPTP Ltd had already filed IA No. 5717 of 2024

objecting to the plan which the Adjudicating Authority had themselves

dismissed. It was also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority while

dismissing the proceedings initiated by BPTP Ltd. on 05.06.2025 had directed

the RP to file an affidavit stating that the 30 flats of Era Divine Court Project

would be kept aside and not alienated and the SRA on the directions of the

RP had also submitted a compliance affidavit to this effect. After the

Adjudicating Authority dismissed IA No. 5717 of 2024, an appeal was also

filed by BPTP Ltd. against this order of 05.06.2025. However, this Tribunal

in its interim order dated 25.08.2025 which appears at page 1148 of Appeal

Paper Book ("APB" in short) directed the Adjudicating Authority to proceed

with consideration of the plan approval application subject to the outcome of

the appeal. In such circumstances, when the Appellate Tribunal was already

seized of the matter and did not preclude the Adjudicating Authority from

proceeding with the plan approval application, there was no cogent reason for

the Adjudicating Authority to make this as a ground to remand the resolution

plan to the CoC, more so, when the RP/SRA had already given an undertaking

that the said flats would remain protected. In this backdrop, we do not find

any cogent basis for the Adjudicating Authority in making the Project Era

Divine Court property a ground for remanding the plan back to the CoC.

Page 12 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026

13. The fourth ground on which the Adjudicating Authority had remanded

the resolution plan back to the CoC was in respect of 13 licenses issued by

DTCP for various housing projects being developed by the Corporate Debtor.

The DTCP had filed IA No. 1399 of 2025 in which they had sought exclusion

of certain licenses issued to wholly owned subsidiaries of the Corporate

Debtor even though the land and development rights in respect of the said

projects remained vested with the Corporate Debtor. The RP had clarified to

DTCP that the development rights in respect of land was vested in the

Corporate Debtor though the licenses were issued in the name of subsidiaries

as can be seen at page 1151 of APB. The RP had also clarified to the

Adjudicating Authority that the judgment of this Tribunal in the Granite Gate

Property Pvt. Ltd. Vs Devendra Singh in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1479 of 2024

was not applicable to the facts of the present case since there was no Lease

Agreement or lease rentals involved in the present case. Furthermore, the

resolution plan of the SRA provided treatment for DTCP claims at Clause 29

of the resolution plan including making earmarked provision for fees for

renewal of licenses as may be seen at page 234 of APB. Thus, we are inclined

to agree with the RP that when the DTCP licences had been dealt with in the

resolution plan which aspect was also considered by the CoC while approving

the resolution plan, the plan could not have been remanded back again on

this ground.

14. On the last observation made by the Adjudicating Authority for the CoC

to consider pending claim applications, it was pointed out that the plan clearly

provided that home-buyers who have not filed claims shall be treated at par

Page 13 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 with the home-buyers who have filed their claims. In view of such explicit

provision for equitable treatment made out even for home-buyers who have

not submitted their claims in the plan, we are inclined to agree with the RP

that when the plan as approved by the CoC provided for parity of treatment

to even those who had not filed their claim, re-opening belated claims of home-

buyers at this stage would clearly run counter to the precepts of law laid down

in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s RPS

Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Mukul Kumar (2023) 10 SCC 718.

15. It is the case of the Appellant-SRA that when it had satisfied the CoC of

its bonafide intent to implement the resolution plan to revive the Corporate

Debtor, the Adjudicating Authority could not have remanded the resolution

plan back to the CoC by harbouring unsubstantiated apprehensions

regarding the feasibility and viability of the plan and its implementation by

relying upon developments which had arisen either post the approval of the

plan by the CoC or had been adequately addressed by the CoC in its

deliberations. It was vehemently asserted that the Adjudicating Authority

enjoys limited powers of judicial review in terms of Section 30(2) and Section

31 of the IBC on the decision taken by the CoC in the exercise of its

commercial wisdom while evaluating and approving a plan. However, the

Adjudicating Authority in the present factual matrix by remanding the plan

for reasons other Section 30(2) and Section 31 of the IBC, it had clearly

travelled beyond the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the Adjudicating

Authority. Submission was pressed that the impugned order deserved to be

Page 14 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 set aside and the plan sent back to the Adjudicating Authority for its

consideration and approval in accordance with law.

16. It may be useful to notice that Section 30 of the IBC which deals with

submission of Resolution Plan and sub-section (6) thereto states that "the

resolution professional shall submit the Resolution Plan as approved by the

Committee of Creditors to the Adjudicating Authority". In the present case,

the RP after approval of the plan by the CoC had filed IA No. 1817 of 2023

before the Adjudicating Authority seeking approval of the Resolution Plan

under Section 31 of the IBC. Section 31 deals with approval of Resolution Plan

wherein subsection (1) provides that if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied

that the Resolution Plan as approved by the CoC under Section 30(4) meets

the requirements as referred to in Section 30(2), it shall by order approve the

resolution plan which shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and other

stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. From the material available on

record, it is an undisputed fact that the CoC has approved the plan in the

present case with 82.66% voting share. Thus, the CoC had clearly exercised

its commercial wisdom as contemplated under the law by majority voting. The

observations made by the Adjudicating Authority basis which it has remanded

the said plan back to the CoC are issues which had already been adequately

addressed either within the resolution plan or through undertakings placed

on record during various stages of the proceedings and do not attract Section

30(2) of the IBC. These five grounds relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority

for remanding the plan back to CoC cannot be said to constitute genuine

impediments which would come in the way of the consideration of the plan by

Page 15 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 the Adjudicating Authority. In this backdrop, the Adjudicating Authority

ought to have proceeded with considering the plan placed before it rather than

substitute the commercial wisdom of the CoC with its own views without

either recording any specific provision of law or CIRP Regulations which have

been contravened or without pointing out at any material irregularity in the

process of plan approval.

17. We are also guided by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150 and para 52

thereof is reproduced below:

"52....... Besides, the commercial wisdom of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention, for ensuring completion of the stated processes within the timelines prescribed by the I&B Code. There is an intrinsic assumption that financial creditors are fully informed about the viability of the corporate debtor and feasibility of the proposed resolution plan. They act on the basis of thorough examination of the proposed resolution plan and assessment made by their team of experts. The opinion on the subject matter expressed by them after due deliberations in the CoC meetings through voting, as per voting shares, is a collective business decision. The legislature, consciously, has not provided any ground to challenge the "commercial wisdom" of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision before the adjudicating authority. That is made non-justiciable."

18. In the given statutory framework of IBC, there is only limited review

which can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority without trespassing

upon the business decision of the CoC. There can be no fetters on the

commercial wisdom of CoC and the supremacy of commercial wisdom of CoC

has been reaffirmed time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the

CoC has approved a Resolution Plan by requisite voting share after

considering its feasibility and viability, such decision of CoC cannot be

Page 16 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026 interfered in the exercise of judicial review either by the Adjudicating

Authority or by this Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers. The

legislative fiat of IBC does not equip the Adjudicating Authority to raise

general concerns about the fitness, justness or effectiveness of the plan once

it is approved by the CoC in the exercise of its commercial wisdom.

Furthermore, when the resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC

wherein the Class of Creditors who largely belonged to the middle class gentry

some of whom were aged and senior citizens who had invested their entire

savings in the project of Corporate Debtor and were now eagerly looking

forward to a time-bound resolution process and hoping to get ownership and

possession of units for which they had paid more than a decade back it goes

without saying that their hopes would be dashed to the ground if the

impugned order is allowed to prevail over the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

We do not see any cogent basis for remanding back of the plan and pushing

it into the quagmire of delay at a time when the home-buyers have already

waited for nearly 14 years for delivery of their units.

19. In result, we are of the considered view that none of the five grounds

given by the Adjudicating Authority has any substance which can be a valid

ground to not consider the application submitted by the RP for approval of

resolution plan in accordance with law. The Adjudicating Authority having

failed to point out any material irregularity or contravention of any provision

of law by the CoC in approving the plan, there was no good ground to remand

the plan back to the CoC for reconsideration.

Page 17 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026

20. In view of the above, we find sufficient merit in the appeal. The Appeal

is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is set

aside and IA No. 1817 of 2023 is revived before the Adjudicating Authority for

passing of fresh order in accordance with law. On production of this order

before the Adjudicating Authority, we also request that the Adjudicating

Authority may expeditiously take up the plan for its consideration and

approval and complete the process preferably within sixty days as the CIRP

process has already dragged on for far too long. No costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Place: New Delhi Date : 16.04.2026 Abdul

Page 18 of 18 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 460 of 2026