Resolution-plan categorisation depends on a valid builder buyer agreement, and class-approved creditor treatment cannot be challenged individually.

A memorandum of understanding that records only a proposed purchase of area, without identifying a specific unit, floor or self-contained premises, and without the features of a builder buyer agreement, cannot be treated as an agreement to sale for resolution-plan categorisation. On that basis, the claimant could not be placed in the category reserved for allottees awaiting possession. The approved resolution plan's differential treatment between categories was also upheld because class-wise creditor approval and commercial wisdom governed the plan, and an individual member could not challenge it merely due to a different recovery outcome. Prior admission of claim did not prevent later classification under the plan.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the memorandum of understanding could be treated as an agreement to sale or builder buyer agreement so as to place the appellant in the category meant for allottees whose possession was pending on the CIRP date; and (ii) whether the appellant could challenge the resolution plan and the classification adopted in it despite approval by the committee of creditors and the authorised representative.

Issue (i): Whether the memorandum of understanding could be treated as an agreement to sale or builder buyer agreement so as to place the appellant in the category meant for allottees whose possession was pending on the CIRP date.

Analysis: The MOU only recorded an understanding for purchase of 25,000 sq. ft. without identifying any specific unit, floor, or self-contained immovable property. The promised rent and return-linked clauses showed that the arrangement was not in the usual form of a builder buyer agreement. The absence of the annexure referred to in the recital and the absence of unit-specific allotment meant that the document could not be equated with a valid BBA or agreement to sale. The classification in the resolution plan therefore turned on the nature of the document and the lack of identifiable allotted premises.

Conclusion: The MOU was not proved to be a builder buyer agreement or agreement to sale, and the appellant was rightly kept out of the category reserved for pending-possession allottees.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could challenge the resolution plan and the classification adopted in it despite approval by the committee of creditors and the authorised representative.

Analysis: An allottee who has paid money for a real estate project remains a financial creditor, but the Code and the RERA framework do not require identical treatment of every class of allottees. The approved plan had distinct categories with different treatment, and the committee of creditors approved it with full voting support. The binding effect of the class vote and the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors barred a single homebuyer from challenging the plan merely because a different recovery percentage followed from a different category. The plea based on prior admission of claim was also rejected, since admission of a claim does not prevent later classification under a resolution plan.

Conclusion: The appellant had no maintainable grievance against the approved plan or its classification, and the challenge to the plan was untenable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits because the appellant could not establish entitlement to the higher category under the resolution plan and could not displace the approved commercial decision of the creditors' class.

Ratio Decidendi: A document that does not identify specific allotted premises and lacks the attributes of a builder buyer agreement cannot be elevated to an agreement to sale for resolution-plan categorisation, and once a resolution plan is approved by the requisite creditor class, an individual member of that class cannot assail the plan on the ground of differential treatment between categories.

---