TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Aslan Ahmed, Ms. Kheyali Singh, Advocates for R3. JUDGMENT Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ("IBC" in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 27.02.2026 (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order") passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Court-III) in I.A. No. 1817 of 2023 in C.P.(IB) No. 1083 (PB) of 2018. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed IA No. 1817 of 2023 filed before it by the Resolution Professional-Respondent No.1 and remanded the resolution plan dated 23.06.2022 alongwith Addendum dated 23.08.2022 submitted by the Appellant-Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA" in short) to the Committee of Creditors ("CoC" in short) for its reconsideration. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant-SRA has come up in appeal. 2. Coming to the brief facts of the case, the Corporate Debtor-M/s Adel Landmarks Ltd. was admitted into CIRP on 05.12.2018. The Interim Resolution Professional who was subsequently confirmed as the Resolution Professional ("RP" in short) had invited EoI in Form-G. The Appellant-SRA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcial decision by the CoC be revisited again by the CoC without recording any specific grounds of statutory non-compliance or material irregularity in the conduct of the CIRP process. It was also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order remanding the plan back to the CoC almost seven years after the initiation of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor in 2018 and almost four years after the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC thus infusing an element of uncertainty into the resolution process which is otherwise supposed to be a time-bound exercise. Submission was pressed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it is contrary to the settled law of impermissible interference with the commercial wisdom of the CoC as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150 and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1478. 4. Making submissions on behalf of the Resolution Professional-Respondent No.1, Shri P. Nagesh Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the resolution plan of the SRA which had been approved by the CoC with majority vote-share was a st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity had remanded the resolution plan back to the CoC were in respect of 13 licenses issued by DTCP. However, when the resolution plan of the SRA provided treatment for DTCP claims including fees for renewal of licenses for which provision had already been earmarked which aspect was also considered by the CoC while approving the resolution plan, it defies logic as to why the plan was remanded on this count. The last observation made by the Adjudicating Authority for the CoC to consider pending claim applications of home-buyers, it was pointed out that the plan clearly provided that home-buyers who have not filed claims shall be treated at par with the home-buyers who have filed their claims. Hence even this was no cogent reason for the Adjudicating Authority to remand the resolution plan to the CoC. It was also submitted that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the RP had placed the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 for consideration of the CoC in its 35th CoC meeting held on 13.03.2026. It was further added that the CoC was also kept apprised that an appeal had already been filed by the Appellant-SRA against the impugned order. The CoC after due deliberations reiterated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the Adjudicating Authority had remanded the plan approved by the CoC with requisite majority was in accordance with the statutory framework of IBC and the well settled legal precept of the commercial wisdom of the CoC. 9. To answer the above question that we have outlined for ourselves, we need to first look at the five grounds basis which the CoC has been directed by the Adjudicating Authority to revisit and reconsider the plan approved by it and also examine the tenability of these grounds in the eyes of law. 10. One of the five grounds which had attracted the attention of Adjudicating Authority was the ongoing litigation in respect of Khan properties belonging to K.H. Khan and Shaheda Begum. From material on record and averments made, the Khans had filed IA No. 4648 of 2020 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking exclusion of certain parcels of land from the Information Memorandum and CIRP of Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed IA No. 4648 of 2020 on 30.04.2024 but had directed the RP on 05.06.2025 to file an affidavit to keep the Khan Property outside the purview of the resolution plan. Accordingly, the RP had filed three affidavits on 11.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC. Further, it was pointed out that this Hon'ble Tribunal in Vantage Point Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Gaurav Misra, Resolution Professional of Alchemist Infra Realty Ltd in CA(AT)(Ins.) No. 1495 of 2024 reiterated that attachments or enforcement actions in relation to prior offences cannot impede the implementation of a Resolution Plan once the statutory protections under the IBC are triggered. We also notice that the RP had kept apprised the CoC of the ED proceedings. It is also the contention of the SRA that it had submitted its plan after conducting due diligence and after verifying all the information contained in the Information Memorandum and it was aware that as SRA it was eligible to claim benefit under Section 32A of the IBC which provides them protection in respect of properties provisionally attached by the ED. In this backdrop of RP having kept apprised the CoC of the ED proceedings and that the SRA, before submitting his plan, was also aware of the PAO on having done his share of due diligence, mere existence of PAO cannot be seen to render the resolution plan incapable of implementation. The Adjudicating Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious housing projects being developed by the Corporate Debtor. The DTCP had filed IA No. 1399 of 2025 in which they had sought exclusion of certain licenses issued to wholly owned subsidiaries of the Corporate Debtor even though the land and development rights in respect of the said projects remained vested with the Corporate Debtor. The RP had clarified to DTCP that the development rights in respect of land was vested in the Corporate Debtor though the licenses were issued in the name of subsidiaries as can be seen at page 1151 of APB. The RP had also clarified to the Adjudicating Authority that the judgment of this Tribunal in the Granite Gate Property Pvt. Ltd. Vs Devendra Singh in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1479 of 2024 was not applicable to the facts of the present case since there was no Lease Agreement or lease rentals involved in the present case. Furthermore, the resolution plan of the SRA provided treatment for DTCP claims at Clause 29 of the resolution plan including making earmarked provision for fees for renewal of licenses as may be seen at page 234 of APB. Thus, we are inclined to agree with the RP that when the DTCP licences had been dealt with in the resolution plan which asp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Committee of Creditors to the Adjudicating Authority". In the present case, the RP after approval of the plan by the CoC had filed IA No. 1817 of 2023 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC. Section 31 deals with approval of Resolution Plan wherein subsection (1) provides that if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the Resolution Plan as approved by the CoC under Section 30(4) meets the requirements as referred to in Section 30(2), it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. From the material available on record, it is an undisputed fact that the CoC has approved the plan in the present case with 82.66% voting share. Thus, the CoC had clearly exercised its commercial wisdom as contemplated under the law by majority voting. The observations made by the Adjudicating Authority basis which it has remanded the said plan back to the CoC are issues which had already been adequately addressed either within the resolution plan or through undertakings placed on record during various stages of the proceedings....