Settlement plan revision required where completion costs and funding details were inconsistent before any insolvency process decision.

The proposed settlement plan for completing Phase-I required revision because the projected completion cost contained irreconcilable figures and the manner of fund mobilisation was not adequately explained. The revised status report showed substantial construction progress, but the promoter's proposed infusion appeared insufficient on its face. A further plan was therefore required to clarify the factual position, set out the funding arrangement, and specify completion within a definite timeframe before any decision could be taken on adoption of a reverse insolvency resolution process or restoration of the corporate insolvency resolution process. The promoter was directed to file a revised settlement plan within two weeks after sharing it with counsel for the homebuyers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed settlement plan for completion of the project required revision to remove inconsistencies in the projected cost and to explain the manner of fund mobilisation for completing Phase-I, and whether a decision could then be taken on adoption of reverse insolvency resolution process or restoration of corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: The revised status report showed substantial construction progress, but the proposed settlement terms contained irreconcilable figures for the cost of completing Phase-I. The report also indicated that the promoter's proposed infusion was insufficient on its face, and the Court therefore required a revised plan clarifying the factual position and the funding arrangement for completion within a definite timeframe.

Outcome: The appellant/promoter was directed to file a revised settlement plan within two weeks, after sharing it with counsel for the homebuyers, and the matter was listed for further hearing.

---