Resolution plan terms may supersede prior contracts and pre-resolution claims; future violations remain outside that extinguishment.

A resolution plan under the insolvency framework may lawfully supersede prior contractual arrangements and pre-resolution remedies where the clauses are confined to past acts, past claims and claims up to the approval or effective date. The restriction on pursuing RERA remedies was upheld because it did not operate as a blanket bar on future violations after the plan became effective. The revised sale price and altered project terms were treated as part of the revival exercise, and the Committee of Creditors' commercial decision to fix a uniform MSP for homebuyers was not found to be unlawful. The challenge to the plan therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the resolution plan was liable to be rejected for allegedly barring homebuyers from pursuing rights and claims under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in respect of future violations. (ii) Whether the increase in the sale price / MSP and the related alterations in project terms amounted to an impermissible rewriting of the original allotment contracts or demonstrated non-application of commercial wisdom by the Committee of Creditors.

Issue (i): Whether the resolution plan was liable to be rejected for allegedly barring homebuyers from pursuing rights and claims under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in respect of future violations.

Analysis: The impugned clauses were read as operating only in respect of past acts, past claims, and claims up to the approval or effective date of the plan. The restriction on approaching the RERA forum was treated as confined to pre-resolution defaults, and not as creating a blanket embargo on future violations after the effective date. The plan was therefore not found to contravene the statutory framework merely because it superseded earlier remedies for prior defaults.

Conclusion: The objection based on alleged extinction of future RERA rights failed and the clause was upheld as relating only to past claims.

Issue (ii): Whether the increase in the sale price / MSP and the related alterations in project terms amounted to an impermissible rewriting of the original allotment contracts or demonstrated non-application of commercial wisdom by the Committee of Creditors.

Analysis: The revised pricing and altered project terms were treated as part of the restructuring mechanism under the insolvency framework. The determination of MSP was regarded as a commercial decision taken for revival of the corporate debtor, and the plan was held capable of modifying earlier contractual arrangements where necessary for implementation. No illegality was found in the fixation of a uniform MSP for the class of homebuyers.

Conclusion: The challenge to the revised pricing and the commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors failed.

Final Conclusion: The resolution plan was found to be legally sustainable, and the appeal did not disclose any ground to interfere with the order rejecting the application.

Ratio Decidendi: A resolution plan may validly supersede prior contractual arrangements and pre-resolution remedies, and objections to its commercial terms will not succeed unless a clear statutory infraction is shown; pre-approval claims can be extinguished, but future violations remain outside such extinguishment.

---