Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goel & Ors vs Kunwarpreet Singh Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 331 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in deciding what payments a resolution plan offers to a class of claims, including the capping of a contingent claim at a fixed amount, is not open to challenge by a claimant whose contingent claim was accepted but capped under the plan, where the cap has been approved by the CoC. A decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable and does not assist a claimant where it was rendered on materially different facts, namely there a secured creditor's claim was not accepted, the entire process was ex parte to it, and the plan misrepresented its claim; a remand to the CoC in such circumstances does not establish that a capped plan approved by the CoC is liable to be set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Mukesh Kumar Goel & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Kunwarpreet Singh Resolution Professional & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants : Present but appearance not marked.
For Respondents : Mr. Dinkar Singh and Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocates.
Ms. Anshika Verma, Advocate for RP.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 332 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1251 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF: Mukesh Kumar Goel & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Kunwarpreet Singh Resolution Professional & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants : Present but appearance not marked.
For Respondents : Mr. Dinkar Singh and Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocates.
Ms. Anshika Verma, Advocate for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
13.03.2026 : Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. These two appeals have been filed challenging the order dated
03.11.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj) in I.A. Plan No.5/2024 in C.P. (IB)
No.39/ALD/2023.
3. Appellant claims to be homebuyers of the corporate debtor who has filed
their claim which was accepted as contingent claim by the Resolution
Professional (RP) and in the resolution plan for contingent claim, an amount
of Rs.1 crore has been capped which plan has been approved by the impugned
order. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that
cap of Rs.1 crore is not in accordance with law and that when contingent
claim was accepted the entire amount should have been covered. He further
relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority' Vs. 'Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.' in
[Civil Appeal No.7590-7591/2023] and submits that in similar matter, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the plan to Committee of Creditors (CoC)
for reconsideration.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Dinkar Singh appearing for the respondent
submits that it was the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) proposal for
capping of Rs.1 crore which was approved by the CoC and on the said
proposal, the appellant's claim was not accepted, since the said claim was
already rejected by the RERA Authority against which the appeal has been
filed by the appellant which is pending.
5. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 331 & 332 of 2026 2 of 4
6. There is no dispute between the parties that claim of the appellant was
accepted as contingent claim in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
(CIRP) and in the resolution plan an amount capping to Rs. 1 crore was made,
as offered by the SRA which has been approved by the CoC. On the question
as to what payments are offered by the resolution plan, it is the commercial
wisdom of the CoC to take a decision and when the cap of Rs.1 crore for
contingent claim has been approved by the CoC, we are of the view that the
appellant cannot be heard in objecting to the capping of Rs.1 crore.
7. Now coming to the judgment relied by the appellant in 'Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority' (supra), in the said case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 55 has directed as follows:
"55. As we have found that neither NCLT nor NCLAT while deciding the application /appeal of the appellant took note of the fact that,- (a) the appellant had not been served notice of the meeting of the COC; (b) the entire proceedings up to the stage of approval of the resolution plan were ex parte to the appellant; (c) the appellant had submitted its claim, and was a secured creditor by operation of law, yet the resolution plan projected the appellant as one who did not submit its claim; and (d) the resolution plan did not meet all the parameters laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, we are of the considered view that the appeals of the appellant are entitled to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is set aside. The order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the resolution plan is set aside. The resolution plan shall be sent back to the COC for re-submission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Code as exposited above. There shall be no order as to costs."
8. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority' (supra), the claim was filed by Greater
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 331 & 332 of 2026 3 of 4 Noida Industrial Development Authority which was not accepted which was
held to be secured creditors, in the above background, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has set aside the plan and remanded the matter for CoC to consider
the claim of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as secured
creditors. The said judgment does not come to any aid of the appellant in the
facts of the present case.
9. We thus do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned at
the instance of the appellant.
Both the appeals are dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 331 & 332 of 2026 4 of 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free