Monitoring Committee Of Earth Towne ... vs Earth Towne Infrastructure Private ...

[Arising out of Impugned Order dated 01.06.2026 in Restored Company Petition (IBC) 9/ND/2025 [Old Case CP (IB) No.196/(ND)/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Bench-IV, National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi]. IN THE MATTER OF: Monitoring Committee of Earth Towne Project Earth Infrastructures Limited Represented by its Member of Monitoring Committee: Mr. Harish Taneja Office at: A1, 228, Block A1, Nauroji Nagar, Safdarjung ...Appellant Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Email: info.htlegal@gmail.com

VERSUS

1. Earth Towne Infrastructure Private Limited Registered office at: B-100, Second Floor, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, South West Delhi-110028. Email: ...Respondent No.1 cirpearthtowne@gmail.com

2. Mr. Rajiv Bajaj Resolution Professional of Earth Towne Infrastructure Private Limited Regd. No.:(IBBI-IPA-002/IP-N00276/2017- 2018/10834) Resident of LG, B-269, Chattarpur Enclave, Phase II, New Delhi, Delhi-110074. ...Respondent No.2 Email: rbajajip@gmail.com

3. Satyabrata Mitra and other Financial Creditors of Earth Towne Infrastructure Private Limited Represented through: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association (Regd.) Association of Financial Creditors Through Mr. Satyabrata Mitra General Secretary Office at: Plot No.GH-4, Sector-1, Greater Noida ...Respondent No.3 (West), Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201318.

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Ekta Choudhary, Mr. Aakash Bhatt, Mr. Harish Taneja, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Chaurasia, Advocate for R-1 and 2. Mr. Rajiv Bajaj- IRP Mr. Lakshay Agarwal, Advocate for R-3.

JUDGEMENT

( 05.10.2026)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal is filed by the Appellant i.e., Monitoring Committee of

Earth Towne Project, Earth Infrastructures Limited under Section 61 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ("Code") arising out of Impugned Order

dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Bench-IV, National Company Law Tribunal,

New Delhi ("Adjudicating Authority") in Restored Company 30 Petition (IBC)

9/ND/2025 [Old Case CP (IB) No.196/ND/2023]

Earth Towne Infrastructure Private Limited is the Respondent No.1 herein.

Mr. Rajiv Bajaj Resolution Professional of Earth Towne Infrastructure

Private Limited is the Respondent No.2 herein.

Page 2 of 37

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

Satyabrata Mitra and other Financial Creditors of Earth Towne

Infrastructure Private Limited is the Respondent No.3 herein.

2. The Appellant submitted that the present Appeal has been preferred against

the Impugned Order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in

Restored Company Petition (IBC) No.9/ND/2025 [Old C.P. (IB)

No.196/ND/2023], whereby the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") filed against Earth Towne Infrastructure

Private Limited ("ETIPL"/"Respondent No.1") was admitted and Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") was initiated against it. The Appellant

stated that ETIPL is the land-owning Special Purpose Company in respect of the

land on which the "Earth Towne" project is situated and that the initiation of

CIRP against ETIPL, subsequent to the Judgment dated 05.05.2026 passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court restoring the Resolution Plan of Earth Infrastructures

Limited ("EIL"), has created a situation in which the implementation of the

restored Resolution Plan has become legally and factually incapable of being

carried out. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to

take into consideration this material subsequent development and proceeded to

admit the Section 7 petition without appreciating its direct and fundamental

consequences upon the implementation of the Resolution Plan already approved

under Section 31 of the Code and subsequently restored by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

Page 3 of 37

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

3. The Appellant submitted that the factual background of the dispute

commences with the allotment of approximately 73,942 square metres of land

comprised in Large Group Housing/Builders' Residential Plot No. GH-04,

Sector-01, Greater Noida, by the Greater Noida Industrial Development

Authority ("GNIDA") to a consortium consisting of EIL, Raus Infras Limited

and Shalini Holdings Limited vide Allotment Letter dated 19.03.2010. The

Appellant stated that GNIDA had formulated a Builders Scheme for plots

measuring more than 60,000 square metres, under which such plots were to be

allotted on lease for a period of 90 years. Clause 8 of the said Scheme specifically

contemplated the constitution of a Special Purpose Company by the members of

a consortium for undertaking development of the allotted plot. Pursuant thereto,

the consortium incorporated ETIPL on 21.07.2010 as the Special Purpose

Company and, thereafter, a Lease Deed dated 01.09.2010 was executed by

GNIDA in favour of ETIPL for a period of 90 years commencing from

01.09.2010. The Appellant further stated that the Lease Deed recorded that

ETIPL was constituted at the instance of the consortium for the purpose of

developing and erecting the project on the subject land and that EIL held 78%

shareholding in ETIPL, while Raus Infras Limited and Shalini Holdings Limited

held 11% each.

4. The Appellant further submitted that after execution of the Lease Deed,

ETIPL entered into an unregistered Development Agreement dated 09.09.2010

with EIL, whereby EIL was entrusted with the right and responsibility to develop

Page 4 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

the land. The Appellant stated that under the said arrangement, the area-sharing

ratio was stipulated at 18% for ETIPL and 82% for EIL, thereby demonstrating

the substantive role of EIL in the development and implementation of the project.

The residential project developed upon the subject land was named "Earth

Towne". The Appellant contended that building permissions were obtained from

GNIDA and a large number of homebuyers and office-space buyers booked units

in the project and paid substantial amounts to EIL and, in certain cases, to ETIPL.

The project was also registered with the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory

Authority. Thus, according to the Appellant, the development of the project, the

financial interests of the homebuyers and the obligations towards GNIDA were

intrinsically connected with EIL and ETIPL and, more particularly, with the

subject land upon which the entire project was founded.

5. The Appellant stated that CIRP was initially commenced against EIL at the

instance of Deepak Khanna, a financial creditor, pursuant to an application filed

under Section 7 of the Code, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority

on 06.06.2018. Thereafter, an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed,

public announcement was made under Section 13 of the Code, and the Committee

of Creditors ("CoC") was constituted. The Appellant submitted that the CoC

consisted of HDFC Bank and approximately 4,229 allottees, including

homebuyers and office-space buyers. Subsequently, a Resolution Professional

was appointed and, pursuant to the revised Form G dated 22.05.2019, three

resolution applicants, namely BPT Infra Projects Private Limited, Roma and

Page 5 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

Alpha, submitted their respective proposals. The plan submitted by BPT Infra

Projects Limited was rejected, whereas the Resolution Plan submitted by Roma

in respect of the "Earth Towne" project was approved by the CoC in its 14th

meeting held on 26.08.2019. Thereafter, GNIDA informed the Resolution

Professional vide letter dated 18.09.2019 that substantial dues amounting to

Rs.148,37,46,148/- were payable to it by ETIPL.

6. The Appellant submitted that the Resolution Plan submitted by Roma was

thereafter approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 05.04.2021

passed in C.A. No.751 of 2019 in CP (IB)-401(ND)/2017. Pursuant to the said

Approval Order, a Monitoring Committee was constituted for supervision,

monitoring and facilitation of implementation of the approved Resolution Plan.

The Appellant contended that the Resolution Plan, once approved under Section

31 of the Code, became binding upon the Corporate Debtor, its employees,

members, creditors, guarantors, other stakeholders, statutory authorities and the

Resolution Applicant. The Appellant further submitted that the said Approval

Order was subsequently challenged before this Appellate Tribunal by GNIDA

and other stakeholders and was set aside vide Judgment dated 30.01.2023. The

matter thereafter travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various connected

Civil Appeals.

7. The Appellant contended that the subsequent Judgment dated 05.05.2026

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2466 of 2023 is of

fundamental significance to the present proceedings. The Appellant stated that

Page 6 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the factual circumstances

surrounding the development of the project and the relationship between EIL and

its subsidiary companies, held that the case was eminently fit for lifting the

corporate veil. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that EIL was the main driving

force behind the development of the projects as well as payment of GNIDA's

dues and that the subsidiary companies were only a front. On that basis, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court restored the Resolution Plans of Alpha and Roma and

permitted the Successful Resolution Applicants to proceed with the Resolution

Plans and complete the projects within the timelines indicated therein. The

Appellant submitted that the aforesaid findings were binding and constituted a

material development which necessarily ought to have been taken into

consideration by the Adjudicating Authority while considering the subsequent

Section 7 proceedings against ETIPL.

8. The Appellant further submitted that, after the aforesaid Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr. Satyabrata Mitra, the Authorized Representative,

along with 145 other homebuyers/financial creditors/allottees of ETIPL,

instituted Restored Company Petition (IBC) No.9/ND/2025 [Old C.P. (IB)

No.196/ND/2023] under Section 7 of the Code against ETIPL. The Appellant

stated that the petition alleged a default of Rs.28,64,48,786/- arising from the

financial debt paid by the applicants towards purchase of their respective units

and the non-delivery of flats/non-payment of the amounts paid by the applicants.

The Adjudicating Authority reserved the matter for orders on 15.04.2026 and

Page 7 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

thereafter, vide Order dated 01.06.2026, admitted the Section 7 petition and

initiated CIRP against ETIPL, appointing Mr. Rajiv Bajaj as the Interim

Resolution Professional. According to the Appellant, the admission of CIRP

against ETIPL occurred immediately after the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court restoring the Resolution Plan of EIL and, therefore, the legal consequences

of the subsequent CIRP upon the restored Resolution Plan required specific

consideration.

9. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority, while passing

the Impugned Order, failed to appreciate that the subject land constitutes the very

foundation and substratum of the Resolution Plan approved in the CIRP of EIL.

It was submitted that the "Earth Towne" project is situated upon the land owned

by ETIPL and that the Resolution Plan of EIL contemplated and depended upon

the development and completion of the said project. Therefore, once CIRP was

commenced against ETIPL, the land-owning entity, the project land came under

the control and custody of the Resolution Professional and became subject to the

insolvency process of ETIPL. The Appellant stated that neither the Appellant nor

the Successful Resolution Applicant could thereafter exercise the requisite

authority, possession or control over the project land for implementing the

Resolution Plan of EIL. Consequently, the very asset upon which the

implementation of the Resolution Plan depended became subject to a separate

insolvency proceeding, thereby creating an irreconcilable conflict between the

two CIRPs.

Page 8 of 37

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

10. The Appellant submitted that the Resolution Plan of EIL was

fundamentally premised upon the development and completion of the "Earth

Towne" project and that the availability and utilisation of the land owned by

ETIPL was indispensable for such implementation. The Appellant contended that

the subject land was not an ancillary or incidental asset but constituted the

essential substratum upon which the entire Resolution Plan was structured. There

was no alternative land, asset or development site through which the obligations

contemplated under the approved Resolution Plan could be performed. Therefore,

according to the Appellant, the commencement of CIRP against ETIPL created a

supervening circumstance which rendered performance of the Resolution Plan

impossible for reasons entirely beyond the control of the Appellant or the

Successful Resolution Applicant. The Appellant emphasised that such

impossibility was not attributable to any default, negligence, omission or

unwillingness on their part but arose solely because the land-owning entity itself

had subsequently been subjected to CIRP.

11. The Appellant further contended that the doctrine of lifting of the corporate

veil, already applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, assumes particular

significance in the present case. The Appellant submitted that once the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had held EIL to be the real driving force behind the development

of the project and the subsidiary companies, including ETIPL, to be merely a

front, the CIRP of ETIPL could not have been considered in complete isolation

from the restored Resolution Plan of EIL. According to the Appellant, the legal

Page 9 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

effect of the Judgment dated 05.05.2026 required the Adjudicating Authority to

consider the relationship between EIL and ETIPL and the consequences of

placing the land necessary for implementation of EIL's Resolution Plan into a

separate insolvency estate. The Appellant stated that failure to consider this

binding finding resulted in an order which frustrates the very implementation of

the Resolution Plan restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12. The Appellant stated that the continuation of two parallel insolvency

proceedings concerning the same real estate project gives rise to conflicting

rights, obligations and statutory responsibilities. On the one hand, the Resolution

Plan of EIL, restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, requires the Successful

Resolution Applicant and the Monitoring Committee to proceed with

development and completion of the "Earth Towne" project. On the other hand,

the CIRP of ETIPL places the land-owning entity and its assets under the control

and custody of the Resolution Professional in accordance with the Code. The

Appellant contended that the same land cannot simultaneously be treated as an

asset required for implementation of one approved Resolution Plan and as an

asset falling exclusively within the control of another insolvency process. Such a

situation, according to the Appellant, creates conflicting statutory obligations

which cannot be harmonised without appropriate directions from this Hon'ble

Appellate Tribunal.

13. The Appellant further submitted that the interests of thousands of

homebuyers are directly affected by the present situation. It was contended that

Page 10 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

the homebuyers constitute a special class of financial creditors under the Code

and that the object of the insolvency process, particularly in a real-estate project,

includes preservation of the project and its completion rather than allowing

competing insolvency proceedings to frustrate such completion. The Appellant

relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land

and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, reported as (2019) 8 SCC 416, in

support of the statutory recognition accorded to homebuyers as financial

creditors. The Appellant submitted that permitting the present state of affairs to

continue would seriously prejudice the interests of the homebuyers, defeat the

objective of value maximisation and undermine the possibility of completion of

the project.

14. The Appellant contended that an approved Resolution Plan under Section

31 of the Code is binding upon all concerned stakeholders and that the Resolution

Plan in question had not merely been approved by the Adjudicating Authority but

had subsequently been restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the

implementation of such Resolution Plan could not be rendered nugatory by a

subsequent event without the competent forum examining the effect of such event

upon the restored plan. The Appellant stated that while Section 31 makes an

approved Resolution Plan binding, the insolvency framework also empowers the

adjudicatory forums to issue appropriate directions where subsequent

supervening circumstances fundamentally alter the factual and legal basis upon

which implementation of the plan depends. The Appellant therefore submitted

Page 11 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

that the appropriate course was to preserve the efficacy of the restored Resolution

Plan and harmonise the competing proceedings rather than permitting

circumstances which make its implementation impossible.

15. The Appellant further stated that, being the Monitoring Committee

constituted pursuant to the approved Resolution Plan, it was directly entrusted

with supervision, monitoring and facilitation of implementation of the Resolution

Plan of EIL. Therefore, once the commencement of CIRP against ETIPL created

a direct impediment to such implementation, the Monitoring Committee was

required to seek appropriate directions from the competent forum. The Appellant

submitted that the Monitoring Committee accordingly held a meeting on

06.06.2026 and considered the effect of the Order dated 01.06.2026 initiating

CIRP against ETIPL. During the meeting, the representatives of the Successful

Resolution Applicant pointed out that the CIRP of the subsidiary/land-owning

company would affect the viability and implementation of the restored Resolution

Plan, particularly in view of the treatment of merger/demerger contemplated

under the Resolution Plan. The Monitoring Committee consequently authorised

Mr. Harish Taneja to draft and file an appropriate application before the

Adjudicating Authority to place on record the subsequent Judgment dated

05.05.2026 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and seek appropriate directions.

16. The Appellant submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid decision, it filed IA

No.2807/ND/2026 before the Adjudicating Authority in Restored Company

Petition (IBC) No.9/ND/2025, seeking dismissal/closure of the CIRP initiated

Page 12 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

against ETIPL. However, on 02.07.2026, the Adjudicating Authority orally

observed that the earlier C.P. (IB) No.196/ND/2023 had merely been restored and

admitted pursuant to directions passed by this Appellate Tribunal and that the

Monitoring Committee constituted in the CIRP of EIL could not file an

application or interfere in the restored petition concerning ETIPL. In view

thereof, the Appellant withdrew IA No.2807/ND/2026 with liberty to take

appropriate legal steps. Thereafter, the Monitoring Committee again convened a

meeting on 11.07.2026 and, after considering the effect of the Order dated

02.07.2026, resolved to approach this Appellate Tribunal and authorised Mr.

Harish Taneja to prepare and file the present Appeal.

17. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority committed a

serious error in law by failing to consider the subsequent and material Judgment

dated 05.05.2026 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court before passing the Impugned

Order. It was submitted that the said Judgment had restored the Resolution Plan

of EIL and had specifically recorded findings regarding the real role of EIL and

its subsidiary companies. The Appellant stated that the legal position governing

the project had therefore materially changed before the Impugned Order was

passed. The failure to consider such a subsequent and binding development,

according to the Appellant, resulted in non-application of mind to a fact which

had a direct bearing on the feasibility, legality and implementation of the restored

Resolution Plan.

Page 13 of 37

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

18. The Appellant further contended that the Impugned Order fails to

appreciate the consequences flowing from Sections 18, 25, 30 and 31 of the Code.

It was submitted that once the CIRP of ETIPL commenced, the project land came

within the insolvency estate under the control and custody of the Resolution

Professional, whereas the Resolution Plan of EIL requires the same land to be

available for project implementation. Therefore, continuation of the CIRP against

ETIPL directly obstructs implementation of the Resolution Plan restored by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Appellant stated that the legislative intent

underlying Sections 30 and 31 would be defeated if an approved and restored

Resolution Plan could be rendered incapable of implementation merely because

of a subsequent insolvency proceeding concerning an entity whose asset

constitutes the very foundation of the project contemplated under that plan.

19. The Appellant submitted that the principle lex non cogit ad impossibilia is

attracted to the facts of the present case, since the law does not compel a party to

perform an act which has become impossible due to circumstances beyond its

control. The Appellant contended that the subsequent commencement of CIRP

against the land-owning entity has made it impossible for the Successful

Resolution Applicant and the Monitoring Committee to obtain the control and

use of the project land necessary for implementation of the Resolution Plan.

Accordingly, instead of allowing the restored Resolution Plan to be frustrated by

an event beyond the control of the stakeholders responsible for its

implementation, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have exercised its

Page 14 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

jurisdiction to preserve the efficacy of the Resolution Plan and protect the

interests of the stakeholders, particularly the homebuyers.

20. The Appellant lastly contended that it had the necessary locus to approach

the Adjudicating Authority as well as this Appellate Tribunal, since the

Monitoring Committee was constituted pursuant to the approved Resolution Plan

and was entrusted with its supervision and implementation. The Appellant stated

that the Impugned Order directly affects its statutory and contractual

responsibilities under the Resolution Plan and prevents it from carrying out the

very function for which it was constituted. It was therefore submitted that the

Appellant was not a stranger to the proceedings against ETIPL but was directly

and substantially affected by the commencement and continuation of the CIRP,

particularly because the project land required for implementation of EIL's

Resolution Plan had been brought within a separate insolvency estate.

21. The Appellant, therefore, submitted that the Impugned Order suffers from

material irregularity, patent illegality and failure to consider relevant and binding

material. It was contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate

the binding effect of the Judgment dated 05.05.2026 of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the findings regarding lifting of the corporate veil, the indispensable nature

of the project land, the effect of the subsequent CIRP against ETIPL and the

resulting conflict between the two insolvency proceedings. The Appellant stated

that the Impugned Order has the effect of frustrating the implementation of a

Resolution Plan restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and causes serious

Page 15 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

prejudice to the interests of the homebuyers and other stakeholders. Accordingly,

the Appellant submitted that the Impugned Order is liable to be interfered with

and set aside by this Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Section 61 of the Code, and that appropriate directions ought to be issued so as

to harmonise the insolvency proceedings, give effect to the binding Judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and preserve the implementation of the approved

Resolution Plan.

22. Concluding arguments, the Appellant requested this Appellate Tribunal to

set aside the Impugned Order and allow the present Appeal.

Findings

23. At the outset, we note that by the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating

Authority admitted the application filed under Section 7 of the Code by Mr.

Satyabrata Mitra and 145 other homebuyers of the project "Earth Towne" and

initiated the CIRP against Earth Towne Infrastructure Private Limited ("ETIPL"

/ "the Corporate Debtor"). The Appeal , therefore, raises a question of some

consequence at the intersection of group insolvency and the finality of resolution:

whether, after the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, by its judgment dated 05.05.2026,

restored the resolution plan for the Earth Towne project in the CIRP of the holding

company, Earth Infrastructures Limited ("EIL"), and has lifted the corporate veil

between EIL and ETIPL on the finding that ETIPL was "only a front", a separate

Page 16 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

CIRP could validly be commenced against ETIPL on 01.06.2026 at the instance

of homebuyers of the very same project, in respect of the very same allotments.

24. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,

including the synopsis filed on behalf of the Appellant dated 05.09.2026 and the

documents annexed thereto.

25. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal, which are largely

matters of record and not in serious dispute, are set out hereunder.

a) On 19.03.2010, the GNIDA allotted Plot No. GH-04, Sector-01, Greater

Noida, measuring 73,942 sq. mtrs., to a consortium comprising EIL, Raus

Infras Limited and Shalini Holdings Limited under Builder Scheme Code

BRS-01/2010-(I). The scheme mandated the incorporation of a Special

Purpose Company ("SPC") for execution of the lease and implementation

of the project. ETIPL was accordingly incorporated on 21.07.2010 as the

SPC. On 01.09.2010, GNIDA executed a Lease Deed for a period of 90

years in favour of ETIPL.

b) On 09.09.2010, ETIPL executed a Development Agreement in favour of

EIL, conferring upon EIL exclusive development rights over the project

land. It was EIL which thereafter developed, marketed and collected

monies for the residential project known as "Earth Towne". The

shareholding of EIL in ETIPL, initially 78%, was subsequently increased

to 98%.

Page 17 of 37

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

c) On 06.06.2018, the Adjudicating Authority admitted a petition under

Section 7 of the Code against EIL in C.P. (IB) No. 401/ND/2017. In the

CIRP of EIL, resolution plans were invited project-wise. The resolution

plan submitted by Roma Unicon Designex Consortium ("Roma") for the

Earth Towne project was approved by the Committee of Creditors in its

14th meeting held on 26.08.2019 and thereafter by the Adjudicating

Authority vide Order dated 05.04.2021 in C.A. No. 751/2019. The

Appellant Monitoring Committee was constituted under that approval

order for supervision and implementation of the approved resolution plan.

d) On an appeal by GNIDA, this Appellate Tribunal, by judgment dated

30.01.2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 630 of 2022 and connected

appeals, set aside the approval of the resolution plans, holding inter alia

that the leasehold lands held by the subsidiaries of EIL could not be dealt

with in the CIRP of EIL without the consent of GNIDA. Civil Appeals

were preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Civil Appeal

No. 2466 of 2023 by the Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association.

e) During the pendency of the Civil Appeals, Mr. Satyabrata Mitra and other

homebuyers of Earth Towne ("the Financial Creditors" / "the

Homebuyers") filed C.P. (IB) No. 196/ND/2023 under Section 7 of the

Code against ETIPL. The Appellant has asserted, and it is not shown to be

otherwise, that the petition was filed because the Homebuyers were

uncertain of the fate of the Civil Appeals. The petition was dismissed by

Page 18 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

the Adjudicating Authority on 21.10.2024 on the ground that the threshold

under the second proviso to Section 7(1) of the Code was not met.

f) That order was set aside by this Appellate Tribunal by judgment dated

04.09.2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 2171 of 2024 (Mr.

Satyabrata Mitra & Ors. v. Earth Towne Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.). This

Appellate Tribunal held that the threshold was to be tested at the stage of

filing and with reference to the units of ETIPL, and that it was met. It is of

significance that this Appellate Tribunal expressly confined itself to the

question of threshold and expressed no view on the merits of the petition.

The petition was restored as Restored Company Petition (IBC) No.

9/ND/2025, and orders were reserved therein by the Adjudicating

Authority on 15.04.2026.

g) On 05.05.2026, that is, after orders were reserved in the restored petition

but before they were pronounced, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the

batch of Civil Appeals by its judgment in Alpha Corp Development

Private Limited v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority &

Ors., 2026 INSC 449 (which includes Civil Appeal No. 2466 of 2023) ("the

Supreme Court Judgment"). The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the

judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 30.01.2023, lifted the corporate

veil between EIL and its land-holding subsidiaries including ETIPL,

restored the resolution plans of Roma and of Alpha Corp Development

Page 19 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

Private Limited, and directed that the time frames for completion of the

projects under the restored plans shall commence from 01.06.2026.

h) On 01.06.2026, the very date from which the implementation time frames

under the restored plan were to commence, the Adjudicating Authority

pronounced the Impugned Order admitting the Section 7 petition against

ETIPL. The Impugned Order does not advert to the Supreme Court

Judgment. It is not in dispute that the Supreme Court Judgment was not

placed before the Adjudicating Authority by the Financial Creditors at any

stage before the admission. The Appellant first approached the

Adjudicating Authority by way of I.A. No. 2807/ND/2026, and the

application was withdrawn on 02.07.2026 with liberty to avail appropriate

remedies. The present Appeal was thereafter filed.

i) Meanwhile, the IRP himself filed I.A. No. 2986/2026 before the

Adjudicating Authority on or about 04.07.2026, under Rule 11 of the

NCLT Rules, 2016 read with Section 60(5) of the Code, placing the

Supreme Court Judgment on record and seeking appropriate directions

including recall, modification or variation of the Impugned Order. This

application is stated to be pending, wherein the IRP has placed on record

that (i) despite the petition having been instituted by 146 homebuyers, only

one claim, that of Mrs. Kavita Ray and Mr. Arvind Kumar Ray, has been

received pursuant to the Public Announcement dated 06.06.2026; (ii) the

Financial Creditors have not deposited the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- directed

Page 20 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

by the Adjudicating Authority towards CIRP expenses; and (iii) the Master

Data of ETIPL on the MCA portal reflects its status as "Struck Off", with

the last financial statements filed being for the year ended 31.03.2014.

26. We note that the Adjudicating Authority, in the Impugned Order, noticed

that EIL is the holding company of ETIPL, that ETIPL was incorporated as a

Special Purpose Company for the purpose of the Earth Towne project, and that

the petitioning homebuyers are the same set of creditors who are creditors of EIL,

so that the debt of ETIPL and of EIL is related to one project, "Earth Towne".

Having so noticed, the Adjudicating Authority nevertheless proceeded to admit

the application due to established debt and default. The Impugned Order

proceeds on the premise that the CIRP of EIL and the Section 7 application

against ETIPL could run side by side, as two independent processes. That premise

may have held good while the resolution plan for Earth Towne stood set aside

and the Civil Appeals were pending. The Impugned Order, however, contains no

consideration of the position after 05.05.2026, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court

restored the plan and lifted the corporate veil. It is this omission which lies at the

heart of the present Appeal.

27. The Appellant made the submissions before us during hearing that though

there is no bar on the filing of two petitions in respect of the same claim, a petition

under Section 7 is not maintainable once the underlying debt stands legally

resolved. The Financial Creditors and their claim in both proceedings are

indistinguishable. The debt of ETIPL and of EIL relates to one project, "Earth

Page 21 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

Towne", and was dealt with in the insolvency of EIL, as the Adjudicating

Authority itself noticed in the Impugned Order in paras 8, 11 and 13.

28. The Appellate stated that the majority of the homebuyers of Earth Towne,

represented through the Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association, supported

the resolution plan of Roma before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Upon restoration

of that plan on 05.05.2026, the underlying claim stood conclusively resolved

before the Impugned Order was passed, leaving no subsisting default capable of

sustaining a Section 7 petition.

29. It is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lifted the corporate veil,

held that the subsidiary / land-owning company was only a front, restored the

resolution plan and directed the successful resolution applicant to complete the

project within the time frame indicated in the plan. The Impugned Order, by

subjecting the very land to a separate CIRP and moratorium, renders the Supreme

Court Judgment incapable of implementation.

30. We consider that a "default" under Section 3(12) of the Code requires a

debt which is due and payable and not paid. In terms of the resolution plan

accepted by the homebuyers, no debt of the kind asserted is due and payable by

ETIPL. Reliance was placed by the Appellate on JC Flowers Asset

Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Laxmi Oil and Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd., Comp. App.

(AT) (Ins.) No. 1052 of 2022, 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 532.

31. Reliance was also placed by the Appellants on Mrs. Mamatha v. AMB

Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 155 of 2018, decided

Page 22 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

on 30.11.2018, 2018 SCC OnLine NCLAT 785, for the proposition that where a

landowner and a developer come together for a project, a Section 7 application

lies against them jointly, and not individually against one or the other; and on

Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706, for the proposition

that procedure is the handmaid of justice.

32. We also observe that the IRP has not opposed the Appeal. His stand, as

reflected in I.A. No. 2986/2026, is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment has

a direct and substantial bearing on the present CIRP. He has submitted that the

leasehold land of ETIPL is the substratum of the Earth Towne project covered by

the restored plan; that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Code, now in force

against ETIPL and its assets, and the obligation of the successful resolution

applicant to complete the project from 01.06.2026 operate over the same subject

matter and are capable of coming into direct conflict; and that the Supreme Court

Judgment, had it been considered ny the Adjudicating Authority, may have

materially influenced the decision on admission. The IRP has, however, fairly

stated that he places the judgment on its own terms and does not express any

independent opinion on its interpretation.

33. Upon consideration of various submissions, as noted above, the following

issues arise for determination:

Issue I: Whether the Appeal at the instance of the Monitoring Committee is

maintainable, and whether this Appellate Tribunal may take into account

Page 23 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

the Supreme Court Judgment, which was not placed before the Adjudicating

Authority.

Issue II: What is the legal effect of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment

dated 05.05.2026 upon ETIPL, its leasehold land and the Earth Towne

project.

Issue III: Whether, on the date of admission, there subsisted a "default" of

ETIPL within the meaning of Section 3(12) of the Code which could found a

separate CIRP, having regard to the restored resolution plan, and whether

the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 04.09.2025 forecloses that

enquiry.

Issue IV: Whether the continuation of the CIRP against ETIPL is compatible

with the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment and the scheme of the Code.

34. Issue I: Whether the Appeal at the instance of the Monitoring

Committee is maintainable, and whether this Appellate Tribunal may take

into account the Supreme Court Judgment, which was not placed before the

Adjudicating Authority.

35. On first issue, it needs to be appreciated that Section 61(1) of the Code

confers a right of appeal upon "any person aggrieved" by an order of the

Adjudicating Authority. The expression is of wide amplitude and is not confined

to the parties before the Adjudicating Authority; it extends to a person whose

legal rights or interests are prejudicially affected by the order. The Appellant is

the body constituted, under the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated

Page 24 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

05.04.2021, to supervise and implement the resolution plan for the Earth Towne

project, a plan which now stands restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the

direction that its implementation time frames commence from 01.06.2026. The

Impugned Order has placed the land on which that plan is to be implemented

under the control of an IRP and under the moratorium of Section 14 of the Code.

An order which directly impedes the implementation of a resolution plan that the

Monitoring Committee is duty-bound to implement plainly affects it

prejudicially. We, therefore, hold that the Appellant is a "person aggrieved" and

the Appeal is maintainable at its instance.

36. In our considered opinion, the fact that the Appellant was not a party before

the Adjudicating Authority does not detract from this conclusion. The Appellant

had no occasion to be heard, and it did attempt to approach the Adjudicating

Authority by I.A. No. 2807/ND/2026, which it withdrew with liberty upon the

realisation on the part of the appellant, itself, that the Adjudicating Authority but

perhaps could not revisit its order. Nor does the pendency of I.A. No. 2986/2026

file by the IRP bar this Appeal. The Appellant is not the applicant in that I.A.,

and the question whether the Adjudicating Authority possesses the power to recall

an order of admission on the ground canvassed therein is itself open to serious

doubt. The statutory appellate remedy under Section 61 is the appropriate forum

for the challenge.

37. As regards the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment not having been placed

before the Adjudicating Authority, it is settled that an appellate forum may take

Page 25 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

notice of subsequent events and developments which have a bearing on the relief,

so as to shorten litigation and to do complete justice. The present case is a fortiori,

for the Supreme Court Judgment is not a subsequent event at all; it was

pronounced on 05.05.2026, nearly four weeks prior to the Impugned Order, and

it concerns the very project of which the Financial Creditors are allottees. Being

a law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a direction issued by it in

respect of the very subject matter, it binds all courts and tribunals under Articles

141 and 144 of the Constitution of India. This Appellate Tribunal cannot shut its

eyes to it.

Issue I is answered in favour of the Appellant.

38. Issue II: What is the legal effect of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Judgment dated 05.05.2026 upon ETIPL, its leasehold land and the Earth

Towne project.

39. We take into consideration the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Judgment was placed before the Adjudicating Authority by the IRP with I.A. No.

2986/2026, which forms Document-1 of the Appellant's synopsis. The

paragraphs which bear upon ETIPL, as extracted therein, are reproduced below.

"... ETIPL was incorporated only to enable GNIDA's leasing of land for development of Earth Towne and was controlled by EIL, with a 98% shareholding. ETIPL, therefore, stands on a different footing from the other two companies, insofar as GNIDA is concerned. In any event, we may note that all three companies either share common directors with EIL

Page 26 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

and/or have their relations as directors. The only assets of the three companies were the lands leased out to them by GNIDA for these projects. The companies' shareholdings indicate that EIL was the dominant and majority shareholder."

"... Insofar as Earth Towne is concerned, as already stated, GNIDA itself required the consortium of the three companies to incorporate a SPC and it was pursuant to this requirement, that ETIPL was brought into existence. Further, the lease deed executed by GNIDA in favour of ETIPL made it clear that EIL was to be the lead member of ETIPL, retaining its majority shareholding as well as its lead role. It is an admitted fact that EIL, which had a 78% shareholding in ETIPL, increased it to 98%. ETIPL executed an agreement conferring the right to develop the project on the leased land in favour of EIL. ... Given the facts obtaining presently, we are of the firm view that this was an eminently fit case for lifting the corporate veil, as EIL was the main driving force in the development of the projects and in payment of GNIDA's dues. The subsidiary companies were only a front. In the light of this finding, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the issue raised in the context of Sections 18 and 25 of the Code, apropos the scope of the term 'assets'."

40. We further note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the fact that the

Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association represents about 1,600 of the

approximately 1,878 homebuyers of Earth Towne, that this majority supports

Roma's resolution plan, and that Roma does not propose to pass GNIDA's dues

Page 27 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

on to the homebuyers. We also note that judgement records that securing

completion of the stalled projects was "the very aim" of the CIRP against EIL,

and permits the successful resolution applicants to proceed with their plans to

complete, inter alia, Earth Towne and directed that the resolution plans "shall

stand restored" and that the time frames for completion "shall commence from

the 1st day of June, 2026".

41. We also note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not decide the case on

the narrow question of whether the leasehold interest was an "asset" of EIL within

Sections 18 and 25 of the Code. It found it unnecessary to do so precisely because

it rested its conclusion on a broader foundation, namely, that the corporate veil

between EIL and ETIPL deserved to be lifted, EIL being the main driving force

and ETIPL being "only a front". The consequence of lifting the veil is that, for

the purposes of the resolution of the Earth Towne project, EIL and ETIPL are

treated as one economic entity, and the land standing in the name of ETIPL is

dealt with under the resolution plan approved in the CIRP of EIL.

42. We accordingly hold that, by virtue of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Judgment, ETIPL's leasehold land, which is its only asset, and the Earth Towne

project upon it stand comprehended within, and are to be dealt with under, the

restored resolution plan of Roma in the CIRP of EIL. The Earth Towne project

has thus already been placed on the path of resolution under the Code, by the

highest court of the land, with a binding timeline commencing 01.06.2026.

Page 28 of 37

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

43. We need to take into consideration the settled principle that the corporate

veil is lifted where the separate personality of a company is used to defeat the

substance of a transaction or to mask the economic reality of a group. Here, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court disregarded the separate personality of ETIPL so that the

formal ownership of the land by ETIPL would not stand in the way of the

completion of Earth Towne under the plan approved in the CIRP of EIL. A

separate CIRP against ETIPL, founded entirely on its status as a distinct legal

person, would resurrect the very separateness that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has disregarded, and would do so for the purpose of subjecting the same land to

a different resolution. That would run directly counter to the ratio and the

directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment. What the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held to be a front for the purposes of resolving Earth Towne cannot be

treated as a real and independent debtor for the purpose of an insolvency process

in respect of the same project.

44. Thus, we find that issue number II also goes in favour of the appellant.

45. Issue III: Whether, on the date of admission, there subsisted a

"default" of ETIPL within the meaning of Section 3(12) of the Code which

could found a separate CIRP, having regard to the restored resolution plan,

and whether the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 04.09.2025

forecloses that enquiry.

46. The jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7(5)(a) of the

Code turns upon its satisfaction that a "default" has occurred. As held by the

Page 29 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1

SCC 407, the enquiry under Section 7 is into the existence of a financial debt and

a default in respect of it. Section 3(12) defines "default" as non-payment of a debt

when the whole or any part or installment of the amount of debt has become due

and payable. This Appellate Tribunal, in JC Flowers (supra), has held that the

words "due and payable" mean that the debt in respect of which default is alleged

must be a subsisting debt, and that the creditor must establish not merely the

existence of a debt but a default in respect of it. What, then, was the "debt" of the

Financial Creditors? It is common ground that they are allottees of units in Earth

Towne, a single residential project developed by EIL on the land of ETIPL, and

that their monies were paid to EIL as developer. Their claim, in substance, is for

the delivery of their units or the refund of the monies paid for them. The

Adjudicating Authority itself found, in the Impugned Order, that the Financial

Creditors are the same set of creditors who are creditors of EIL, and that the debt

of ETIPL and EIL relates to one project, "Earth Towne" [Impugned Order, paras

8, 11 and 13]. The record further indicates that the claims of a substantial number

of the petitioning homebuyers had been admitted in the CIRP of EIL [NCLT order

dated 09.07.2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 196/ND/2023 recording that claims of around

70 of the 145 homebuyers stood admitted in the resolution plan of EIL.

47. It is well settled that an approved resolution plan is binding on the corporate

debtor and all its stakeholders, including creditors, and that on its approval a

successful resolution applicant takes over the undertaking on a "clean slate"; all

Page 30 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished: Ghanashyam Mishra and

Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657;

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020)

8 SCC 531. The resolution plan of Roma, restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

provides for the completion of Earth Towne and the handing over of units to its

allottees. The claims of the allottees of Earth Towne, arising out of their

allotments in that project, are thus the very claims that the restored plan deals

with and resolves. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court lifted the veil and treated

ETIPL as a front for EIL, the claim of an Earth Towne allottee against ETIPL

cannot be regarded as a debt distinct from his claim against EIL in respect of the

same unit. It is one claim, arising from one allotment, in one project, against what

has been judicially declared to be one economic entity. That claim has been

resolved in the manner provided under the restored plan, under which the

obligation to complete the project and to deliver the units rests upon the

successful resolution applicant, within the time frames commencing from

01.06.2026. On 01.06.2026, therefore, there subsisted no separate debt of ETIPL,

due and payable to the Financial Creditors, the non-payment of which could

constitute a "default" independent of the resolution plan. An allottee's remedy for

performance lies under and in terms of the plan, and in enforcement of it through

the Monitoring Committee and the Adjudicating Authority, and not in a fresh

CIRP against the land-holding front.

Page 31 of 37

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

48. We note that Section 31(1) of the Code provides that a resolution plan

approved by the Adjudicating Authority "shall be 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 in force, such as authorities to

whom statutory dues are owed, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the

resolution plan." The allottees of Earth Towne are, by any reckoning,

"stakeholders involved in the resolution plan" of Roma, which is a plan for the

completion of their very project. The binding effect of Section 31(1) thus operates

upon them, and the restoration of the plan by the Hon'ble Supreme Court revives

that binding effect in full.

49. We acknowledge the fact that the Appellant has fairly conceded that there

is no bar in law to two petitions being filed in respect of the same claim, one

against the developer and the other against the landowner. We agree with the

proposition, but the question here is different. It is not whether the Financial

Creditors could file the petition in 2023, when the resolution plan for Earth Towne

stood set aside and its future was uncertain; it is whether the petition could be

admitted on 01.06.2026, after the plan had been restored by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and the land of ETIPL had been brought within it. The maintainability of

the application at the time of filing does not answer the question whether, at the

time of admission, a default subsisted which justified the initiation of a CIRP.

The Adjudicating Authority was bound to take into account the state of affairs

Page 32 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

obtained on the date on which it exercised its jurisdiction under Section 7(5) of

the code. We however observe that the pronouncement of judgement by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was perhaps not brought to the notice of the adjudicating

authority by the Appellant at that stage. Hence, the adjudicating authority did not

have privilege of the said judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are also of

the view that, perhaps, there was no intention of Adjudicating authority to ignore

the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and acted in good faith, based on

the records available at the time of reserving the order.

50. However, we need to emphasise that where a landowner and a developer

have come together for a single real estate project, the insolvency resolution of

that project should proceed as a consolidated one, since the completion of the

project depends upon both entities. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion

that the application would lie against the landowner and developer jointly and not

individually against one or the other. The principle underlying these decisions is

consolidation for the purpose of completion of the project. In the present case,

that consolidation has already been achieved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Judgment, which has brought the land of ETIPL within the resolution of EIL. A

separate CIRP against ETIPL alone, commenced after that consolidation, would

not consolidate but fragment the resolution of Earth Towne, which is the very

mischief, which need to be avoided.

51. We are of clear view that the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated

04.09.2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 2171 of 2024, decided only the

Page 33 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

question whether the threshold under the second proviso to Section 7(1) was

satisfied, and expressly refrained from expressing any view on the merits. It

restored the petition to be decided on merits in accordance with law. It was

rendered at a time when the resolution plan for Earth Towne stood set aside by

this Appellate Tribunal and the Civil Appeals were pending, and when the

separate identity of ETIPL had not been subjected to the scrutiny that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court later undertook. The legal landscape was fundamentally altered

by the Supreme Court Judgment of 05.05.2026. The satisfaction of the threshold

is a condition for the filing of an application; it is not a finding that a default exists

which justifies admission. The earlier judgment of this appellate Tribunal,

therefore, does not foreclose the enquiry undertaken by us.

Issue III is answered in favour of the Appellant as on the date of the Impugned

Order there was no default of ETIPL, distinct from the claims resolved under the

restored resolution plan, capable of founding a separate CIRP under Section 7 of

the Code.

52. Issue IV: Whether the continuation of the CIRP against ETIPL is

compatible with the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment and the scheme of

the Code.

53. It needs to be appreciated clearly that even apart from the question of

default, the continuation of the CIRP against ETIPL would bring it into direct

collision with the Supreme Court Judgment. Upon admission, the moratorium

under Section 14 of the Code was attached to ETIPL and its assets. Section

Page 34 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

14(1)(b) of the code prohibits the transferring, encumbering, alienating or

disposing of any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; the

management of ETIPL vests in the IRP; and a fresh process for resolution of

ETIPL, with its own committee of creditors and its own resolution plan, would

follow. At the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that Roma

shall proceed with the completion of Earth Towne on that very land from

01.06.2026, and shall pay GNIDA's recalculated dues in installments over

twenty-four months. Two processes under the same Code cannot run

simultaneously over the same land, one to implement a plan and the other to seek

a different resolution of it. The IRP has rightly pointed out this conflict.

54. We are conscious of the fact that Article 144 of the Constitution of India

mandates that all authorities, civil and judicial, shall act in aid of the Supreme

Court. A proceeding which, if allowed to continue, would impede the

implementation of a resolution plan restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with

specified timelines cannot be permitted to continue. The objective of the Code is

resolution, and the objective of the Supreme Court Judgment was expressly the

completion of the stalled projects for the benefit of the homebuyers. A parallel

CIRP against the land-holding entity serves neither objective. It threatens to delay

the project for the very homebuyers of Earth Towne, the overwhelming majority

of whom supported the restored plan. If the successful resolution applicant fails

to complete the project or to deliver the units in accordance with the restored plan,

the allottees are entitled to seek enforcement of the plan before the Adjudicating

Page 35 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

Authority in the CIRP of EIL under Section 60(5) of the Code, through the

Monitoring Committee constituted for that purpose, and the consequences of any

contravention of an approved plan are provided for in the Code itself, including

Section 33(3). The remedy of the allottees is thus the enforcement of the plan that

resolves their claims, and not the commencement of a parallel process that would

undermine it. Indeed, the interest of every allottee of Earth Towne, including the

Financial Creditors, lies in the speedy completion of the project, which is what

the restored plan is designed to achieve. The material placed by the IRP reinforces

this conclusion. Out of 146 petitioning homebuyers, only one claim has been

received in the CIRP of ETIPL. The Financial Creditors have not deposited the

CIRP costs directed by the Adjudicating Authority. ETIPL is a company with no

business other than holding the leasehold land, has filed no financial statements

since 2014, and has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a front. A

CIRP of such an entity, running parallel to a court-restored plan, is devoid of any

meaningful resolution content.

Issue IV is answered in favour of the Appellant. The CIRP against ETIPL is

incompatible with the Supreme Court Judgment and cannot be permitted to

continue.

55. In view of above detailed discussions, we find merit in the appeal. The

appeal succeeds and the Impugned order is set aside. The parties are directed to

appear before the adjudicating authority on 15 October 2026, who shall take

Page 36 of 37 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1344 of 2026

further course of action in accordance with law. There will be no order as to cost.

IA, if any, stand closed.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) Sim (Shweta)

Page 37 of 37