Resolution Professional vs Amar Prakaash Developerss Private Limited

IA(IBC)(Plan)/11(CHE)/2025 is an Application filed by the Resolution Professional (“RP”) of the Corporate Debtor viz., AMAR PRAKAASH DEVELOPERSS PRIVATE LIMITED under Section 30(6) & 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short, ‘IBC, 2016’) read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (in short, ‘CIRP Regulation, 2016’) seeking approval of the Resolution Plan dated 22.08.2025 submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”), Mr. Aadarsh Kumar Surana, as approved by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”).

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor viz. Amar Prakaash Developerss Private Limited was initiated by this Tribunal vide an order dated 18.04.2023 passed in CP(IB)/73/CHE/2022 filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 by K.V. Capital. Consequently, Mr. Vishwanathan Gopalan was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. Subsequently, in the 2^nd CoC meeting held on 17.06.2023, the Applicant herein was appointed as the Resolution Professional in respect of the Corporate Debtor, whose appointment was confirmed by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.11.2023.

The erstwhile IRP, in compliance with Sections 13 and 15 of the Code read with Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations, issued a public announcement on 19.04.2023 in two newspapers and thereafter constituted the Committee of Creditors (CоC).

The Applicant after taking over the records and documents from the erstwhile IRP, addressed several emails to the suspended director seeking pending information such as complete tally records from FY 2018-19 till the commencement of CIRP, title deeds of land investments, records of vehicle sales, pleadings of all legal cases, and full list of creditors and debtors with supporting documents. However, owing to continued non-cooperation, the Applicant filed IA(IBC)/776(CHE)/2024 under Section 19(2) of the Code, which was disposed of by order dated 02.05.2024. The Applicant subsequently took over the custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

The Applicant intimated various statutory authorities, employees and all the creditors (operational, financial and other creditors) about the initiation of CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

Consequent to application filed by the suspended management challenging the admission of homebuyers claims by the erstwhile IRP and filing of subsequent application by the applicant for reclassification of home buyers claims admitted by the erstwhile IRP, this Tribunal passed multiple orders dated 04.12.2024, 06.01.2025, 18.03.2025, and 23.07.2025. In compliance with these orders, the applicant verified and admitted the claims of the Home Buyers, and the Committee of Creditors was reconstituted. As on 15.08.2025, its composition is as under:

The erstwhile IRP had appointed one Registered Valuer M/s. Pensar Valuation Private Limited prior to the appointment of the applicant as the RP. After confirming from the COC, the applicant reconfirmed the appointment of M/s. Pensar and appointed the second valuer M/s. G Tech by issuing engagement letters dated 14.12.2023. These two registered Valuers were asked to conduct the valuation of the Corporate Debtor, covering land and building, plant and machinery, securities and financial assets. However, with respect to asset class of land and building, the valuation as determined by the two registered valuers, showed a significant variance, exceeding the permissible difference of 25% as prescribed. Consequently, in terms of Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulations, a third valuer, M/s Mavent Advisors Private Limited, was appointed on 05.09.2024 specifically for land and building valuation. The average fair value was assessed as Rs. 261,61,23,233/-. The liquidation value was assessed as Rs. 164,66,18,347/-.

The Applicant engaged a Transaction Auditor i.e., M/s Rajvanshi & Associates through engagement letter dated 23.01.2024 and received the Transaction Audit Report on 17.08.2024. After determining the Preferential, Undervalued, Fraudulent and Extortionate (PUFE) transactions, the Applicant filed the applications under Section 66 of the Code in IA(IBC)/2209(CHE)/2025 and IA(IBC)/892(CHE)/2025 and application under Section 49 r/w Section 45 of the Code in IA(IBC)/1646(CHE)/2024.

On 05.12.2023, the CoC in its 4^th meeting approved the publication of Form-G for issuance of Expression of Interest, (EOI). Accordingly, the Applicant published the Form-G in two newspapers, viz. English language (Financial Express-PAN India) and Makkal Kural in Tamil language (Chennai Edition) on 20.12.2023, wherein the last date for submission of EOI was fixed as 19.01.2023.

On publication of Form-G, Expression of Interest was received from 4 Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs). The Provisional List of the Prospective Resolution Applicants was circulated to all the stakeholders on 29.01.2024 for objections, if any. Subsequently, the Final List of PRAs was issued on 13.02.2024. The Data Room including IM, Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) and Bid Evaluation Matrix (BEM) were made accessible to the PRAs w.e.f. 18.02.2024. However, no resolution plan was received from any PRA till the last date for submission, i.e., 19.03.2024.

Consequently, in the 8^th CoC meeting held on 27.03.2024, the CoC, with 63.6% voting share in favour [Out of 77.5% Vote Share who Voted], resolved to re-publish Form-G. Accordingly, the RP / Applicant published Form-G afresh on 24.04.2024 in Financial Express (Pan-India, English) and Makkal Kural (Tamil, Chennai Edition), fixing 15.05.2024 as the last date for submission of EOIs.

On publication of the 2^nd Form-G, Expression of Interest was received from 12 PRAs. The Provisional List of the PRAs was circulated to all the stakeholders on 20.05.2024 for objections, if any. The Final list of PRAs was issued on 28.05.2024. The Data Room including IM, Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) and Bid Evaluation Matrix (BEM) were made accessible to them on the same date i.e., 28.05.2024. The last date for submission of resolution plan was initially fixed as 27.06.2024, which was subsequently extended by 15 days to 25.07.2024, and thereafter further extended up to 14.08.2024, with the approval of the CОС.

In the 14^th CoC meeting held on 19.08.2024, the RP received three Resolution Plans, however one of the PRA failed to submit the EMD, for which the COC granted additional 24 hours to comply. The CoC also deliberated and approved the engagement of a professional to conduct due diligence on the resolution plans.

15^th CoC meeting was held on 22.08.2024. One of the PRAs failed to pay the EMD, resulting in a non-compliant resolution plan. Since two compliant resolution plans were received, the representatives of the respective PRAs were called in the meeting to open the password-protected plans for the CoC's consideration. In the 16^th CoC meeting which was held on 28.08.2024, deliberations on the Swiss Challenge mechanism were undertaken to enhance value maximisation.

In the 17^th CoC meeting held on 02.09.2024, the CoC deliberated on the two resolution plans. Certain modifications to the Swiss challenge mechanism were made as per the directions of the CoC. In the 19^th CoC meeting held on 04.10.2024, it was decided that the PRAs would be allowed to enhance the financial value of their resolution plans through the Swiss Challenge method, with the provision that each resolution plan could be modified only once, in accordance with the CIRP Regulations. The CoC requested the RP to conduct a thorough examination of the resolution plans. Certain concerns were raised by the authorized representative of homebuyers regarding non-completion of projects, which were to be addressed with the PRAs during negotiations. Additionally, the CoC approved a 30-day extension of the CIRP period, shifting its completion to 15.11.2024. The CoC also discussed timelines for the Swiss Challenge method as well as the eligibility of the suspended director under Section 29A.

20^th CoC meeting was held on 14.10.2024, wherein it was determined that the suspended director was ineligible to participate in the resolution process due to a NPA status on a personal loan. This decision was communicated to the suspended director through email, who contested the said decision. The CoC also discussed and deliberated on arranging interim finance to continue the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Finally, the CoC, acknowledging that, with only one PRA remaining due to the suspended director's ineligibility, cancelled the Swiss Challenge method.

21^st meeting of the CoC was held on 11.11.2024, wherein the RP discussed the matter of raising interim finance before the CoC. Further, vide an order dated 17.10.2024, this Tribunal directed the RP not to conduct CoC meetings or discuss resolution plans until disposal of IA 1958, IA 2152, and IA 2054 of 2024. It is submitted that by an order dated 07.11.2025, the stay was vacated for conduct of CoC meetings and for discussions on the resolution plans. Consequently, the CoC approved the exclusion of the CIRP period of the Corporate Debtor from 17.10.2024 until the disposal of IA 1958/2024, 2152/2024, and 2054/2024. Further, in the 22^nd CoC meeting held on 12.12.2024, discussions were undertaken regarding reclassification of claims in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal.

25^th CoC meeting was held on 06.03.2025, wherein the RP resumed discussions on the resolution plans following the vacation of the interim stay, as this Tribunal, vide order dated 19.02.2025, dismissed IA 1958 of 2024 and ,IA 2152 of 2024, observing that the suspended director is eligible to participate in the resolution process.

In the 28^th CoC meeting held on 17.05.2025, the CoC discussed and deliberated on the resolution plans. Further one of the PRA sought a reduction in the Performance Security from 10% of the Resolution Plan Value to Rs.5.0 Crores. The CoC considered the request and approved an amendment to the relevant clause in the RFRP, reducing the Performance Security amount to Rs.7.0 Crores, accepting the condition that the entire Performance Security amount would be refunded to the SRA within 30 days upon full implementation of the Resolution Plan. This modification of the RFRP led to the invitation of resolution plans from all the participants listed in the Final List. In compliance with Regulation 36(B)(5) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, the Addendum to the Request for Resolution Plan was circulated to all PRAs listed in the Final List. The last date for submission of Resolution Plan was fixed as 05.07.2025.

30^th CoC meeting was held on 14.07.2025 and 15.07.2025, wherein the RP informed the CoC that as on the last date of submission of resolution plan, the RP received the Resolution Plans from two PRAs namely, (1) Mr. Aadarsh Surana (Ex Director) and (2) The Consortium of M/s Ayra Infra Solutions Private Limited, M/s Additya Infrastructures, Mr. Gopal Sharma and Mr. Sandip Agarwal. The RP invited the PRAs to share their passwords and discuss their resolution plans. Following detailed discussions between the CoC and the PRAs, RP circulated the resolution plans to the CoC for thorough analysis, queries, and comments.

32^nd CoC meeting was held on 19.08.2025 and 20.08.2025, during which intimation regarding the reconstitution of the CoC was given. Further, upon intimation by one of the PRAs, i.e. Mr.Aadarsh Surana that he would not participate in the Swiss Challenge, the COC deliberated and decided to do away with the Swiss Challenge Mechanism and instead decided that both the PRAs will be given final opportunity to give their Best Resolution Plans. The contents of resolution plan i.e., treatment of avoidance applications and constitution of monitoring committee etc., in accordance with the IBBI CIRP Regulations, were discussed with the PRAs. After detailed discussions, the CoC directed that the final resolution plans be submitted by 22.08.2025, upto 5:00 PМ.

After detailed deliberations and discussions by the Committee of Creditors ("CoC"), both the Resolution Plans were put to e-voting pursuant to the 33^rd CoC Meeting held on 28.08.2025. The e-voting process concluded on 17.09.2025, wherein the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Aadarsh Kumar Surana was approved by the CoC with 85.21% voting share in favour. Thereafter, the RP submitted the resolution plan before this Tribunal in IA(IBC)(Plan)/11(CHE)/2025.

After going through the Resolution Plan Application, it was found that the Resolution Plan was not compliant in terms of the provisions of IBC, 2016 read with attendant Regulations. Hence, in terms of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 531 and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 7590–7591 of 2023, wherein it has been held that in order to ensure compliance under Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016, a Resolution Plan can be remitted back to the CoC for reconsideration, this Tribunal deemed it appropriate to adopt such a course in the present case. Accordingly, this Tribunal on 27.02.2026 directed the CoC to make discussions and deliberations on certain non compliances and revert back to this Tribunal. In fact, this Tribunal remitted back the Resolution Plan only to seek certain clarifications from the CoC in relation to the issues as stated above and also to make the plan compliant under Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016. The remand was not for a de novo reconsideration of the Resolution Plan. It is noted that no modifications or alterations have been carried out to the Resolution Plan pursuant to such remand vide order dated 27.02.2026. So there was no question of submission of a revised Resolution Plan or placing the same before the CoC for fresh approval. The Resolution Plan was remitted solely to enable the CoC to deliberate upon and clarify the identified issues, so as to facilitate an informed decision in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- CoC of Educomp Solutions Limited & Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 586, in para 157 has observed that “……The Adjudicating Authority can only direct the CoC to re-consider certain elements of the Resolution Plan to ensure compliance under Section 30(2) of the IBC, before exercising its powers of approval or rejection, as the case may be, under Section 31….”. Thus, the remand in the present case was circumscribed and limited in scope, confined solely to ensuring compliance with Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016.

In compliance with the directions of this Tribunal, the 35^th CoC meeting was convened by the RP on 09.03.2026, however LICHFL sought time to take a decision in this regard. When the matter was listed for hearing before this Tribunal on 23.03.2026, this Tribunal directed the RP to hold another CoC meeting since the plan relates to homebuyers and process has to be expedited and to apprise the Tribunal by way of a memo on or before 30.03.2026. Thereafter, on 09.04.2026 the Successful Resolution Applicant, Mr. Aadarsh Surana, addressed an e-mail referring to Clause JJ of the approved Resolution Plan and the CoC's decisions to withdraw the avoidance/PUFE applications. As the Resolution Professional had no authority to withdraw the applications, he filed IA(IBC)/700(CHE)/2026 to place this development before the Tribunal.

On 06.05.2026 the SRA undertook to pay the full CIRP cost and fee and the RP's incentive at 1% under Regulation 34B(4), and pointed to the performance bank guarantees of Rs. 5.0 crore (25.09.2025) and Rs. 2.0 Crore (03.10.2025) already furnished, agreeing to place all relevant documents and undertakings with the RP. Thereafter, on 07.05.2026, this Tribunal noted that Form-H recorded certain non-compliances of the Plan with Section 30(2) of the Code; that the affidavits / undertakings furnished by the SRA to cure them did not form part of the Resolution Plan as approved by the CoC. Hence, by relying on M.K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder; (2024) 1 SCC 42 and Ebix Singapore (supra), the Tribunal remitted the Plan to the CoC for the limited purpose of Section 30(2) compliance (not de novo consideration), directing the SRA to submit the Plan with annexures / addendum to the RP within 5 days, the RP to convene the CoC within 5 days, the CoC to deliberate and vote within 5 days, and the RP to file a revised Form-H.

On 26.05.2026, the RP placed the addendum, affidavits and the minutes of the 37^th CoC meeting held on 18.05.2026 before this Tribunal. Noting that certain minor compliances remained, this Tribunal granted the SRA a day to file the compliance affidavit and directed the RP to forthwith convene the CoC and put the Plan to vote.

On 02.06.2026, the RP filed the minutes of the 38^th CoC meeting held on 01.06.2026 and submitted that the Resolution Plan is now compliant with Section 30(2), save that the strategic partner, M/s. Centwin Homes Pvt. Ltd., had not furnished a Section 29A affidavit. The SRA's counsel clarified that Centwin Homes is an investor and not a strategic partner "acting in concert" by relying upon Hari Babu Thota, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1642, ArcelorMittal India; (2019) 2 SCC 1 and Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak; (2008) 1 SCC 1). As no voting had yet taken place despite the earlier direction, the Tribunal directed the RP to place the Plan with documents, annexures and addendum for deliberation and voting and to convene the CoC on 10.06.2026.

On 16.06.2026, the RP reported that the Plan was put to e-voting in the 39^th CoC meeting held on 10.06.2026 and the e-voting was conducted between 12.06.2026 and 15.06.2026. He reported that the CoC has approved the Resolution Plan with 96.71% of the voting share in favour. Time was sought to file the revised Form-H. The particulars of the Financial Creditors who voted in favour of, and against, the Resolution Plan are set out hereinbelow: —

The resolution passed in the 39^th meeting of the CoC is extracted below:

The RP, based upon the revised Resolution Plan along with the addendum filed Form – H dated 16.06.2026 before this Tribunal. In the said Form – H, the RP has certified as follows;

The RP, in Form H, has certified that the Resolution Plan complies with the provisions of the Code and the CIRP Regulations, save for a qualification under Section 30(2)(a) of the Code concerning the treatment of CIRP Costs, as recorded in Clause 4 of the Written Undertaking on CIRP Costs dated 27.05.2026 furnished by the Successful Resolution Applicant, Mr. Aadarsh Kumar Surana. Upon perusal of the said undertaking, it is evident that the Resolution Applicant has unconditionally and irrevocably undertaken to pay the full CIRP Costs and fee which shall be paid in priority including any amounts that may subsequently be determined and crystallised as payable, such as the fees and expenses of the erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional, in accordance with Section 30(2)(a) of the Code read with Regulation 34B of the CIRP Regulations. He has also unconditionally and irrevocably undertaken to pay the performance lined incentive to the RP at the rate of 1% of the difference between the resolution plan and the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor. It is relevant to note that in the 4^th CoC meeting, in agenda item No. 10, RP had proposed an incentive fee structure based on the timelines and the value of the resolution plan in comparison to the liquidation value. The CoC after deliberation approved a performance linked incentive structure for the RP in presence of the erstwhile Promoter of the Corporate Debtor who is now the SRA. Regulation 34B and Schedule II provide for performance linked incentive fee for timely resolution and for value maximisation. The incentive for timely resolution as per Clause 3 of Schedule II read with Table 2 prescribes a graded incentive structure based on the time period within which the resolution plan is submitted and expressively provides that no incentive shall be payable where the CIRP period exceeds 330 days. However, the performance linked incentive for value maximisation as provided under Clause 4 of Schedule II operates on a different and independent footing. It stipulates that an incentive at the rate of 1% of the amount by which the realisable value exceeds the liquidation amount may be paid to the RP after the approval of resolution plan by the Tribunal. The embargo contained in Table 2 is thus confined only to incentives linked to timeliness and cannot by implication be extended to incentives linked to value maximisation.

Considering the above and in view of undertaking, which is accepted and shall form an integral part of this Order, the said qualification stands duly addressed and the Resolution Plan is held to be compliant with Section 30(2)(a) of the Code. The Resolution Applicant shall remain bound by the said undertaking and shall discharge all CIRP Costs, whether presently ascertained or subsequently crystallised, in terms thereof.

In so far as the qualification recorded by the RP in Form-H regarding non-furnishing of Section 29A affidavit by M/s. Centwin Homes Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, we have considered the submissions of the RP and the clarification offered on behalf of the Resolution Applicant. The Resolution Applicant, Mr. Aadarsh Surana, has filed an affidavit under Section 30(1) of the Code affirming his eligibility under Section 29A. His eligibility also stands judicially affirmed by this Tribunal in IA(IBC)/2152(CHE)/2024 vide order dated 19.02.2025. The only residual concern is whether M/s. Centwin Homes Pvt. Ltd. is also required to furnish such an affidavit.

The bar under Section 29A operates not only against the Resolution Applicant but also against "any person acting jointly or in concert with such person." On consideration of the material on record, we find that M/s. Centwin Homes Pvt. Ltd. is merely a financial investor in the Resolution Plan and is not a Resolution Applicant. It has not submitted the Resolution Plan, nor it proposes to acquire or exercise any management or control over the Corporate Debtor. Its role is confined to the infusion of funds towards implementation of the Plan. The mere provision of finance by an investor, without any element of control over the affairs of the Corporate Debtor or over the conduct of the resolution process, does not render such investor a person "acting jointly or in concert" with the resolution applicant within the meaning of Section 29A, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 1, and as is also borne out by the principle in Hari Babu Thota, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1642. The Resolution Applicant has, in this regard, also filed a declaration affirming that a Section 29A affidavit is not required in respect of M/s. Centwin Homes Pvt. Ltd.

In these circumstances, we hold that M/s. Centwin Homes Pvt. Ltd., being only an investor and not a person acting jointly or in concert with the Resolution Applicant, is not required to furnish a separate affidavit under Section 29A of the Code. The qualification recorded in Form-H on this score therefore does not affect the eligibility of the Resolution Applicant or the compliance of the Resolution Plan with Section 30(1) read with Section 29A, and the same stands satisfied.

The Application bearing Inv.P(IBC)/11(CHE)/2025 has been filed by the Liquidator of EAP Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, inter alia seeking permission to intervene in IA(IBC)(Plan)/11(CHE)/2025 and consequently to reject the Resolution Plan submitted therein, in the interest of justice.

The Applicant, being the Liquidator of EAP Infrastructure Private Limited (EAPIPL) has stated that one of the primary assets of the said Corporate Debtor comprises two adjoining parcels of land situated in Survey Nos. 148/3, 149/1A, 149/1B and 152/1Pt in Pazhanthandalam Village, admeasuring 1.67 acres, which were purchased on 27.07.2015 for a consideration of Rs.4.97 Crores by way of duly executed Sale Deeds.

Subsequently, on 29.10.2018, EAPIPL entered into a Loan Agreement with Kriticons Ltd., wherein the entire extent of the aforesaid lands was offered as security. On 08.08.2019, an Operational Creditor initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Code against EAPIPL, and thereafter, various transactions were undertaken whereby the assets of EAPIPL were dissipated, rendering it asset-less at the time of admission into CIRP.

On 15.12.2020, an amount of Rs.2.61 Crores was purportedly debited in the books of accounts of EAPIPL without any actual inflow of consideration, and the subject land measuring 1.67 acres was transferred to the Corporate Debtor through a General Power of Attorney dated 15.03.2021. The said GPA does not disclose any consideration and appears to be a device to effectuate a transfer without a registered conveyance, though the books of accounts reflect it as a sale transaction in favour of Amar Prakash Developers.

It is alleged that the aforesaid transaction is ex facie a preferential transaction within the meaning of Section 43 of the Code. It is stated that attempts to auction the property were unsuccessful due to non-availability of original title deeds, which remain in possession of the promoters.

It is stated that parallel proceedings were initiated by the RP of Amar Prakaash in IA(IBC)/1646(CHE)/2024, claiming ownership over the land, wherein the Applicant was subsequently impleaded. It is stated that the RP included the disputed land as an asset of the Corporate Debtor.

It is stated that during the hearing on the approval of the resolution plan on 13.10.2025, the Applicant objected to the inclusion of the subject land in the Resolution Plan, contending that the same continues to vest with EAP Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and cannot form part of the assets of Amar Prakash. It is submitted that this Application has been filed to formally intervene and protect the interests of the creditors of EAPIPL.

We have heard the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The primary grievance of the Applicant is founded upon the alleged invalidity of the transaction concerning the subject land measuring 1.67 acres, which forms the subject matter of challenge in IA(IBC)/855(CHE)/2022, wherein avoidance of the transaction has been sought on the ground that the same constitutes a preferential transaction under Section 43 of the Code. It is to be noted that this Tribunal has already adjudicated the said IA(IBC)/855(CHE)/2022 vide order dated 30.06.2026 wherein, upon detailed consideration of the facts, documents and applicable provisions of law, the said Application came to be dismissed. Consequently, the challenge to the transaction in question no longer survives.

In so far as IA(IBC)/1646(CHE)/2024 is concerned, which was also relied upon by the Applicant to assert competing claims over the subject property, the same has likewise been dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2026. Therefore, the proceedings relied upon by the Applicant to substantiate its alleged rights over the property are no longer pending adjudication and do not survive for consideration.

In view of the dismissal of IA(IBC)/855(CHE)/2022, the substratum of the Applicant’s contention that the subject land continues to vest with EAP Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and cannot be treated as an asset of the Corporate Debtor stands negated. The Applicant cannot be permitted to reagitate the very same issue in the guise of an intervention in the present proceedings.

The relief sought is thus rendered untenable both on facts and in law.

Accordingly, Inv.P(IBC)/11(CHE)/2025 stands disposed of.

The Applicant i.e. Ayra Consortium has filed the Application i.e. IA(IBC)/1985(CHE)/2025 under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), seeking intervention in IA(IBC)(Plan)11(CHE)/2025 and for various consequential reliefs in relation to the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC.

It was submitted that during the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, multiple Resolution Plans were received, including the Resolution Plan submitted by the Applicant consortium; and the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Aadarsh Surana, who is stated to be the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor.

It was submitted that the Applicant’s resolution plan was compliant with the provisions of Section 30(2) of IBC, 2016, whereas the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Aadarsh Surana was non-compliant with the provisions of the Code and the CIRP Regulations. Despite such non-compliance, the Resolution Professional, in contravention of Section 30(3) of the Code, placed the Resolution Plan of Mr. Aadarsh Surana before the CoC for its consideration and approval. The CoC, in its 33rd meeting held on 22.08.2025, approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Mr. Aadarsh Surana.

It was submitted that thereafter the Resolution Professional proceeded to file I.A. (Plan) No. 11/2025 before this Adjudicating Authority seeking approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31(1) of the Code. It is alleged that the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC is in violation of Section 30(2) of the Code and suffers from material irregularities.

It was submitted that the Resolution Professional himself, in separate proceedings, indicated that the approved Resolution Plan suffers from non-compliances. Thus, the RP ought not to have placed it before this Tribunal for approval. It is alleged that there was a collusion and connivance between the Resolution Professional, the CoC, and the Suspended Management in approving a non-compliant Resolution Plan, thereby depriving the Applicant of a fair opportunity despite having submitted a compliant plan.

We have heard the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the Applicant is a Prospective Resolution Applicant whose Resolution Plan has not been approved by the CoC. The legal position is well settled that a Prospective Resolution Applicant does not possess any vested or indefeasible right to have its Resolution Plan approved. Participation in the CIRP process is merely an opportunity and does not confer any enforceable legal right. In the present case, the Applicant seeks to challenge the decision of the CoC on the ground that its Resolution Plan was compliant and ought to have been approved. If such an application is entertained, it would result in opening floodgates for unsuccessful bidders to challenge every commercial decision of the CoC, thereby frustrating the time-bound resolution process envisaged under the Code.

The CoC is vested with the responsibility of evaluating and approving Resolution Plans in the exercise of its commercial wisdom, which has consistently been held to be paramount. The jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority, on the other hand, is circumscribed and confined to examining whether the Resolution Plan satisfies the requirements contemplated under Section 30(2) of the IBC, 2016. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 531, holds that while the commercial wisdom of the CoC is non-justiciable, the Adjudicating Authority is duty-bound to ensure that the Resolution Plan complies with the statutory requirements under Section 30(2) of the Code. Further, in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 7590– 7591 of 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, in appropriate cases where the Resolution Plan does not meet the statutory requirements, the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to remit the Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration.

Upon careful consideration of the materials placed on record, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Resolution Plan is now in compliance with the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC, 2016, and there is no legal impediment to proceed with its approval under Section 31(1) of the Code. This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that the Resolution Plan pertains to a real estate project involving numerous homebuyers, where timely resolution is of paramount importance to safeguard their interests.

In view of the foregoing, this Adjudicating Authority is of the considered opinion that the Applicant, being an unsuccessful Resolution Applicant, has no vested or enforceable right to challenge the commercial decision of the CoC. The allegations of non-compliance, material irregularity, and collusion raised by the Applicant are found to be unsubstantiated, and do not warrant any interference by this Adjudicating Authority more so when the very non-compliances apprehended have, in the meantime, been cured and the Resolution Plan stands approved by the requisite majority.

Accordingly, the IA(IBC)/1985(CHE)/2025 stands dismissed.

This Application has been filed by the Resolution Professional, M/s. Trupro Insolvency Services LLP, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Section 25(2)(j) and Section 26 of the Code, seeking directions from the Tribunal on the fate of the Avoidance Transaction Applications filed by the Resolution Professional, namely IA No. 1646 of 2024 (under Section 49 r/w Section 45), IA No. 892 of 2025 (under Section 66) and IA No. 2209 of 2024 (under Section 66) of the Code.

The principal cause for seeking such directions arises from the applications under Section 66 of the Code filed against the suspended director of Amar Prakaash Developerss Private Limited, who is also the person that has submitted the Resolution Plan in respect of the Corporate Debtor.

The said applications under Section 66 and Section 49 r/w Section 45 of the Code have already been considered and disposed of by this Tribunal independently by separate orders. In view of the independent disposal of the said applications, the very cause for which the present Application came to be filed no longer subsists.

Accordingly, IA(IBC)/700(CHE)/2026 stands disposed of.

The Intervention Application has been filed by the Applicant/Intervener, Mr. Viswanathan Rajagopalan, the erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking leave to intervene in IA(IBC)/PLAN/11/2025 as a necessary party and a direction to the Committee of Creditors to include his Interim Resolution Professional’s fees of Rs. 33,04,000/- and the CIRP expenses incurred by him of Rs. 2,77,200/- as part of the CIRP costs in the Resolution Plan.

In response to the application, the RP during the hearing on 16.06.2026 submitted that the CoC in the meeting had already considered the fee and expenses payable to the erstwhile IRP. It was resolved by the CoC that fee and expenses will be paid upto the 2^nd CoC which amount has been included in the CIRP cost. The IRP before the plan approval has never objected to the same and now has filed the application at the fag end of approval of the resolution plan.

Since the amount claimed by the erstwhile Interim Resolution Professional towards his fees and expenses already forms part of the CIRP costs and the CIRP costs are, in any event, payable in priority in terms of Section 30(2) of the Code, the claim of the Applicant stands subsumed within and is to be dealt with as part of the CIRP costs. So, nothing further survives for adjudication in this Intervention Application.

Accordingly, IVN(P)(IBC)/5(CHE)/2026 stands disposed of.

This Intervention Petition has been filed by the Applicant / Intervener, Mrs. Latha Devi Gani, a homebuyer/allottee of Flat No. H-111 in the “Palm Riviera” project of the Corporate Debtor, under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The reliefs sought by the Applicant in the Intervention Petition are as follows:

The Applicant holds a registered Sale Deed dated 23.02.2015 in respect of Flat No. H-111. She claims to have been handed over the possession of the said flat on 23.06.2022 pursuant to the orders of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Her grievance, in substance, is that notwithstanding the same, the said flat continues to be reflected in the records maintained during the CIRP as remaining in possession of the Corporate Debtor and to be treated as unsold inventory / an asset under the Resolution Plan. It is stated that she has not received any intimation regarding the status of the claim filed by her in Form CA.

Having heard the parties and considered the matter, we are of the view that the Applicant holds a registered Sale Deed dated 23.02.2015 in respect of Flat No. H-111, and the right, title and possession of the said flat in her favour stands recognised by the orders of the TNRERA. The 1^st Respondent / Resolution Professional is directed to reconcile.

In so far as the relief at prayer clause (c) is concerned, namely a direction to include the compensation amount of Rs.11,69,520/- said to have been awarded by the TNRERA in CCP No. 134/2019 dated 16.12.2019 and in EP No. 4/2021 in C.No. 306/2019 dated 30.12.2021, in the Resolution Plan, we find that the same cannot be granted. The Applicant has fairly admitted that the said compensation amount of Rs.11,69,520/- was not included in the claim submitted by her before the Resolution Professional in Form CA. It is well settled that the Resolution Professional can collate and admit only such claims as are made before him in the manner and within the time prescribed under the Code and the CIRP Regulations, and a claim that was never lodged before the Resolution Professional cannot be directed to be included in the Resolution Plan at this belated stage, more so after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. The Applicant having not made any claim towards the said compensation/damages before the Resolution Professional, the relief sought at prayer clause (c) is liable to be and is hereby rejected. It is, however, made clear that the treatment of the Applicant as a homebuyer shall be in accordance with the Resolution Plan.

Accordingly, IVN.P(IBC)/6(CHE)/2026 stands disposed of.

This application has been filed by the Applicant / Resolution Professional, M/s. TruPro Insolvency Services LLP, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, against the Resolution Applicant, Mr. Aadarsh Surana, seeking a direction that the incentive fee of the Resolution Professional as approved / ratified by the CoC in its 4^th meeting held on 05.12.2023 under Regulation 34B read with Regulation 31 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 is mandatorily required to be paid by the Resolution Applicant as part of the CIRP cost, and for consequential reliefs, including keeping the plan approval application IA(IBC)(Plan)/11(CHE)/2025 in abeyance until such an undertaking is furnished by the Resolution Applicant.

During the pendency of this application, the Resolution Applicant, Mr. Aadarsh Surana, furnished a written undertaking dated 27.05.2026 to pay the incentive fee of the Resolution Professional, in terms of Regulation 34B of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, as part of the CIRP cost, which undertaking forms part of the addendum to the Resolution Plan. The said undertaking, along with the addendum, has been placed before and approved by the Committee of Creditors in its 39^th meeting held on 10.06.2026.

In view of the undertaking dated 27.05.2026 given by the Resolution Applicant to pay the incentive fee of the Resolution Professional as part of the CIRP cost, and the approval thereof by the CoC in its 39^th meeting held on 10.06.2026, the very grievance raised in this application stands redressed and the relief sought therein has been substantially secured. The Resolution Applicant shall remain bound by the said undertaking and shall pay the incentive fee of the Resolution Professional, as part of the CIRP cost, in priority, in terms thereof and in accordance with Regulation 34B of the CIRP Regulations, 2016.

Accordingly, IA(IBC)/1905(CHE)/2025 stands disposed of

The resolution plan provides for payment of full CIRP cost and fee in priority consistence with Clause 5.2 and 5.3. It also provides for payment of performance link incentive to the RP @ 1% of the difference between the resolution plan value and the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor.

The Resolution Plan provides payment of Rs. 250.00 crores for secured financial creditors, payable as consideration for full and final settlement of admitted debt. Upon full payment of the resolution amount, all security interests created in favour of financial creditors shall stand released and transferred to the Corporate Debtor.

The Resolution plan provides a payment of Rs. 9.0 Crores towards settlement of the claims of Unsecured Financial Creditors (Homebuyers) whose units remain undelivered. This is over and above the amounts earmarked for Secured Financial Creditors, Operational Creditors, and other stakeholders.

Affected homebuyers are given option to avail a Swap Mechanism, i.e. (i) Allotment of alternate units of equivalent value in the projects (Royal Castle, Temple Waves, Palm Riviera), subject to availability; or (ii) Monetary compensation from Rs.9.0 Cr pool and project receivables. Upon receiving monetary settlement and/or alternate allotment, all claims, rights, titles, and interests of such homebuyers as against the Corporate Debtor shall stand fully and finally settled, satisfied, discharged, and extinguished.

Distribution from the Rs.9.0 Cr pool will be linked to receivables from the Corporate Debtor's projects and unsold inventory sales. The Resolution Applicant confirms that such disbursals will be prioritised in line with Section 30(2) and Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations.

The Plan provides that dissenting FCs and unsecured homebuyers shall receive settlement in priority, consistent with liquidation value entitlement under Section 53.

Resolution Applicant undertakes to complete common amenities (clubhouse, gym, swimming pool, landscaped park, party hall, etc.) along with unit handovers, so that swapped or alternate units are delivered with full facilities.

As per Clause 5.1 of the resolution plan, following are the list of creditors as on 15.08.2025.

As per clause 5.2 of the Resolution Plan, the following is the amount proposed to the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor;

The SRA will invest upto Rs. 200.0 Crores as working capital for the Resolution and the revival of the Corporate Debtor as required to resolve from time to time, the Resolution Applicant shall be allowed to raise loan/financing from SBI Ventures Ltd (formerly known as SBICAP Ventures Ltd) on first charge basis on the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

Project Palm Riviera offers a range of 2 BHK, 3 BHK, and 4 BHK apartments. Corporate Debtor had availed the project loan of Rs.230.0 Crores from LIC Housing Finance Limited and has mortgaged 746 apartments of the Project.

Project Royal Castle offers a range of 1 BHK, 2 BHK, and 3 BHK apartments, duplexes, and penthouses, catering to a diverse set of preferences. Corporate Debtor had availed the project loan of Rs. 99.50 crores from Asset Care & reconstruction Enterprises Limited ("ACRE") and has mortgaged 97 apartments of the Project. The corporate debtor has also availed the project loan of Rs. 110.0 Crores from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and has mortgaged 432 apartments of the project.

Project Temple Waves by Corporate Debtor is especially designed to nurture the well-being and development of children. Corporate Debtor had availed the project loan of Rs. 90.0 crores from Asset Care & reconstruction Enterprises Limited ("ACRE") and has mortgaged 400 apartments of the Project.

In the Project Sun City as per the information provided by suspended director, there is outstanding balance of Rs. 71,68,124/- for the allotted apartments and no due is outstanding for the delivered and permanently sold apartments. Any receivables which will be received from the above said project will be revenue of the RA/CD.

Pungathur Land: As per the suspended director, all the pieces of project lands and development thereof have been transferred/sold except for the 5.15 acres of land at Village Pungathur. Book value of the land is Rs. 709.78 lakhs and has been mortgaged to Classic FM Developers and KV Finance and Investments. In Pungathur land, the Resolution Applicant would require to incur Rs. 5.0 Crores for approvals, developments, plotting as these would be sold on plotting basis where as per the Doc. No. 6318 of 2017 SRO Thiruvallurvar, the Corporate Debtor gifted to the municipality Thiruvallurvar as stated below, Total extent 4 acre 60.77 cents with net saleable area of 1,24,278 sq.ft. where the approval is still pending before the DTCP (Directorate of Town & Country Planning) and Thiruvalluvar Municipality. Hence, the authorities concerned not to insist on new planning permission applications and process the existing application and issue the planning permission for the same.

Palm Rivera Club: Built up area of admeasuring 34902 square feet of Palm Rivera Clubs building part of Palm Rivera Project Club (I & II) will have no challenges in access from the common area spaces of the project to use and access, by the RA or its members from outside the project, visitors, prospective owners of the said buildings

No maintenance charges can be levied now and in future by the RWAs or any third party what so ever. Since, the large area in the project is owned by a third party namely Home Buyers of the project, RWAs and the Corporate Debtor. As far as the membership sold by the Corporate Debtor which entered into litigation due to maintenance issue with the Corporate Debtor the existing members who have taken the ownership from the Corporate Debtor for the said club will start from the date of the opening of the said club, provided the member pays the yearly AMC in advance for one year for the usage.

In case the member fails to pay the AMC in advance, membership which is sold by the Corporate Debtor to the existing members stands cancelled and it will be up to the RA to deal with the membership as deems fit from the business / commercial point of view.

In any case, any membership fee which is collected by Corporate Debtor will not be refunded nor can be claimed by the existing members and also any sort of compensation/damages can't be claimed now or in future.

Royal Castle Club Aurum (HAPPINESS TOWER): Built up area of First and second floor, wing registered office of Corporate Debtor admeasuring 19601 square feet of Royal Castle Club building called Happiness Tower is a commercial space not a club space, will have no challenges in access to the common area spaces of the said building to use and access, since large area in the building is owned by a third party so as the Corporate Debtor has sold the club to third party the membership sold by the Corporate Debtor which entered into litigation due to maintenance issue with the Corporate Debtor the existing members who have taken the ownership from the Corporate Debtor is no way responsible for the membership sold to them.

In any case, any membership fee which is collected by Corporate Debtor will not be refunded nor can be claimed by the existing members and also any sort of compensation/damages can't be claimed now or in future.

Temple Waves Club: Built up area of admeasuring 57757 square feet of Temple Waves Clubs building part of Temple Waves Club Project Club (I & II) will have no challenges in access from the common area spaces of the project to use and access, by the RA or its members from outside the project, visitors, prospective owners of the said buildings.

No maintenance charges can be levied now and in future by the RWAs or any third party what so ever. Since, the large area in the project is owned by a third party namely Home Buyers of the project, RWAs and the Corporate Debtor. As far as the membership sold by the Corporate Debtor which entered into litigation due to maintenance issue with the Corporate Debtor the existing members who have taken the ownership from the Corporate Debtor for the said club will start from the date of the opening of the said club, provided the member pays the yearly AMC in advance for one year for the usage.

In case the member fails to pay the AMC in advance, membership which is sold by the Corporate Debtor to the existing members stands cancelled and it will be up to the PRA to deal with the membership as deems fit from the business/commercial point of view.

In any case, any membership fee which is collected by Corporate Debtor will not be refunded nor can be claimed by the existing members and also any sort of compensation/damages can't be claimed now or in future.

As per Clause 6.11 of the Resolution Plan, the SRA will complete all clubs, amenities, facilities of the CD as per APPAC (Agreement of Project Promotion and construction) whatever are not done by the CD within 4-6 quarters from the requisites approvals from RERA and other Authorities from the received date as promised under the agreements by the CD. In case any work which is already completed by the CD and due to maintenance issue not in working condition, the CD will complete the same. A detailed list is attached in annexure 3.

APPAC Agreements entered with undelivered homebuyers will have over riding effect and this new timeline as per the resolution plan will be applicable and balance payments as per the APPAC need to be paid as per stage payment by the Homebuyer without any additional charges for the apartment.

Special Swap options will be given to undelivered Homebuyers with no additional charges applicable if swapped within the same project with similar area of the home. However, if swap option is not availed within first 180 days from the requisite statutory approval received, then swap options will not available to the undelivered Homebuyers what so ever may be the reason.

In project The Royal Castle, tower K.J.M.N will be delivered in 8 quarters from the requisites Approvals from RERA and other Authorities from the received date to complete the promised under the agreements by the CD.

In project The Temple Waves Tower A, B will be delivered in 10 quarters and Tower H in 12 quarters from the requisites Approvals from RERA and other Authorities from the received date to complete the promised under the agreements by the CD.

In project Venezian Palm Rivera tower C,D,G,J,K will be delivered in 10 quarters from the requisites Approvals from RERA and other Authorities from the received date to complete the promised under the agreements by the CD.

The Undelivered Homebuyers will be given apartment as promised by the CD under the APPAC specifications and other facilities to their satisfaction and will be delivered on priority. The Completion of Amenities, facilities and club will be completed on priority with the support of Respective RWA's and homebuyers of the Respective Projects to their satisfaction and completing the promises of the CD as per the APPAC with mutual consent and cooperation.

The RA requests the support of all Homebuyers and the RWA's to implement the plan as soon as possible and complete all the unfulfilled promises under the APPAC of the CD to bring satisfaction to the homebuyers, so requests one coordinator to be in charge of RWA's from each project to implement the plan. The RA will fix infrastructure issue in any of the above three projects with mutual consent and cooperation of the RWA's to improve the homebuyers life style.

Grievance Redressal mechanism: The RA will be available every fortnight (14 days) on a weekend or twice a month to meet any homebuyers for first year during the implementation of the plan, where any homebuyer can walk in to meet during the visiting hours without any appointment to address any issue of the homebuyers or to resolve the issues / queries whatsoever.

It is stated in Clause 5.10 and 5.11 of the Resolution Plan and addendum that the Resolution Applicant proposes to implement the Plan using: (i) liquid funds already available, (ii) proceeds from sale of unsold inventory of the Corporate Debtor, and (iii) financial support from SBI Ventures Limited by raising first charge on assets of Corporate Debtor, (iv) A comfort letter from Centiwin Housing Private Limited confirming financial support annexed to the Plan.

Further, in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal dated 27.02.2026, the SRA has provided additional details regarding source of funds, along with supporting documents, vide note dated 07.04.2026.

The funding for implementation of the Resolution Plan is structured on a two-tier basis. The primary source is M/s Centwin Housing Private Limited, which has given an open-ended and uncapped commitment to infuse funds by way of Optionally Convertible Debentures (OCDs) until the Resolution Plan is fully implemented. This commitment is evidenced by the Comfort Letter dated 07.05.2025, the Board Resolution dated 22.08.2025, and the further Board Resolution dated 18.03.2026 (the latest reaffirmation, made contingent only upon NCLT approval of the Plan), supported by the audited balance sheets of Centwin for FY 2022-23 to FY 2024-25, reflecting total assets of approximately Rs. 250 crore as on 31.03.2025. The secondary source is the SWAMIH Fund (operated by SBI Ventures Ltd.), identified in Clause 5.10 of the Resolution Plan for project completion financing.

As regards the SWAMIH Fund, the SRA has placed on record that the eligibility of the Corporate Debtor's three projects (Palm Riviera, The Royal Castle and Temple Waves) for SWAMIH Fund 1 confirmed by SBI Ventures Ltd. vide communication dated 21.08.2025 is subject to availability; that SWAMIH Fund 1 has since been exhausted; and that SWAMIH Fund 2 can be processed only after NCLT approval of the Plan, followed by statutory and TNRERA approvals, requiring a minimum of six months from the date of NCLT approval. The SRA has submitted that the requirement of a SWAMIH Fund 2 sanction letter prior to NCLT approval is premature, and that the primary funding from Centwin is by itself sufficient for implementation of the Plan.

The SRA has submitted that the sources of funds stand disclosed consistently and comprehensively in the Resolution Plan, the Addendum dated 24.09.2025 and 07.04.2026 and the communications dated 17.03.2026 and 29.03.2026 to the CoC / RP, as also confirmed by his counsel before this Tribunal on 30.03.2026, which is recorded vide orders dated 27.02.2026 and 30.03.2026. The Plan is intended for the benefit of approximately 3,000 homebuyers and other stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor.

RP has filed an Affidavit on 25.10.2025 stating that the SRA has submitted two Performance Bank Guarantees, one amounting to Rs. 5.0 Crore on 25.09.2025 and the second amounting to Rs.2.0 Crores on 03.10.2025, thereby totalling to Rs.7.0 Crores, as per RFRP.

Till the resolution plan is fully implemented, a committee shall be constituted comprising of the Resolution Professional / Process Advisor ("Monitoring Professional"), 3 (three) nominees of the Resolution Applicant and 3 (three nominees) of the secured Assenting Financial Creditors and (iv) representatives of homebuyers, with at least one representative from each major project or cluster of projects.

The Implementation and Monitoring Committee shall act strictly in accordance with the terms of this Resolution Plan at all times.

No financial liability shall arise on the Assenting Financial Creditors on account of their nominee member of the Implementation and Monitoring Committee. All decisions of the Implementation and Monitoring Committee shall be taken by way of majority decision of its members present and voting.

Any costs relating to appointments under the Implementation and Monitoring Committee and any legal fees in respect thereof during the period from the NCLT Approval Date till the Proposed Settlement is fully settled ("Interim Management Costs") shall be paid by the Resolution Applicant.

The fees payable to the Chairman – Monitoring Committee shall be at Rs. 2,00,000/- per month (for initial period of 12 months) and thereafter at Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, which shall be borne by the Resolution Applicant and treated as part of the implementation costs of the Resolution Plan.

The control and management of Corporate Debtor shall be taken over by the RA pursuance to the resolution plan approved by NCLT till full amount to the COC is fully settled, however, the implementation of the Resolution Plan shall be carried out by the Implementation and Monitoring Committee (IMC).

On the NCLT Approval Date, the Board of Directors of Corporate Debtor shall be deemed to have been reconstituted wherein the existing directors (including independent directors) shall be deemed to have resigned and new directors shall be deemed to have been appointed to the Board of directors of Corporate Debtor as required by Resolution applicant. The new directors will have authority to do all the necessary filing with ROC and other authority.

After the resolution plan is fully implemented, the Resolution Applicant shall be in control and management of affairs of Corporate Debtor and the business shall be carried by new management as appointed by Resolution applicant.

The Resolution Applicant/Board shall appoint statutory Auditor/Internal auditor subject to applicable Laws.

In order to successfully derive the operations, the team of expert of relevant field will work under the direct supervision and control of the new management.

Considering the nature of the project, being a real estate project involving large body of homebuyers, and necessity to ensure strict adherence to timelines and faithful implementation of the Resolution Plan, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to appoint an Independent Expert / Consultant to oversee the progress of the project. Such monitoring shall commence from the date on which approval is obtained from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA).

Shri. A. Bhaskar, Retired AE, CPWD, Email ID: [email protected] (Mob. No. 7358442610) is appointed as the Independent Expert / Consultant (“Project Oversight Consultant”) to monitor the implementation of the Resolution Plan, particularly with respect to the timelines for completion of the project and delivery to homebuyers.

The Project Oversight Consultant shall

The fees payable to the Project Oversight Consultant shall be Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month, which shall be borne by the Resolution Applicant and treated as part of the implementation costs of the Resolution Plan.

The Project Oversight Consultant shall function independently and shall not be subject to the control of the Resolution Applicant or the Implementation and Monitoring Committee (“IMC”), except to the limited extent of receiving necessary information, documents, and cooperation for the discharge of his/her functions. The Consultant shall submit quarterly progress reports to this Tribunal, with a copy to the IMC, detailing the status of project implementation, adherence to timelines, utilization of funds, and any deviations or concerns requiring directions.

The Resolution Applicant, the reconstituted management of the Corporate Debtor, the Implementation and Monitoring Committee (IMC), and all other stakeholders shall extend full cooperation and provide unhindered access to all relevant records, project sites, financial information, and personnel, as may be required by the Project Oversight Consultant for the effective discharge of his duties.

In the event of any non-cooperation, obstruction, delay, or denial of access by the Resolution Applicant, management, IMC, or any stakeholder, the Project Oversight Consultant shall forthwith bring the same to the notice of this Tribunal by way of an appropriate report.

The Applicant has submitted the details of various compliances as envisaged within the provisions of IBC, 2016 and CIRP Regulations, which require a Resolution Plan and addendum to adhere to, which are reproduced hereunder:

REGULATIONS :-

It is seen that that Resolution Applicant is the ex-promoter of the Corporate Debtor. The eligibility under section 29A was decided by this Tribunal in IA(IBC)/2152(CHE)/2024 vide its order dated 19.02.2025. The Corporate Debtor has obtained the MSME Certificate.

It is seen from Form – H that the Liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor is arrived at Rs.164.66 Crores and the corresponding Fair value is arrived at Rs.261.61 Crores and the Resolution Plan value is Rs.259.86 Crores.

Further, it is seen from Form – H, that the RP has filed two Applications under 66 of IBC, 2016 in IA(IBC)/2209(CHE)/2025 and IA(IBC)/892(CHE)/2025 and an application under Section 49 read with Section 45 of the Code in IA(IBC)/1646(CHE)/2024. The above three Applications have been disposed of by this Tribunal vide orders dated 30.06.2026.

In so far as the approval of the Resolution Plan is concerned, this Authority is convinced on the decision of the Committee of Creditors, following the much-celebrated Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Sashidhar –Vs– Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150, wherein in para 19 and 62 it is held as under;

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steels –Vs– Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 8766 – 67 of 2019 at para 42 has held as under;

………Thus, it is clear that the limited judicial review available, which can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision of the majority of the Committee of Creditors, has to be within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code, insofar as the Adjudicating Authority is concerned, and Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the Code, insofar as the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, the parameters of such review having been clearly laid down in K. Sashidhar (supra).

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.

Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. (supra) has lucidly delineated the scope and interference of the Adjudicating Authority in the process of approval of the Resolution Plan and held as under;

(emphasis supplied)

Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 531 after referring to the decision in K. Sashidhar (supra) has held as follows;

(emphasis supplied)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. v. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal no. 3395 of 2020 dated 24.03.2021 has held as follows;

Thus, from the catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope of approval of the Resolution Plan, it is amply clear that only limited judicial review is available for the Adjudicating Authority under Section 30(2) and Section 31 of IBC, 2016 and this Adjudicating Authority cannot venture into the commercial aspects of the decisions taken by the Committee of Creditors.

On hearing the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional, and perusing the record, we find that the Resolution Plan with addendum has been approved with 96.71% voting share. It is seen that plan meets the requirement of being viable and feasible for the revival of the Corporate Debtor. By and large, all the compliances have been done by the RP and the Resolution Applicant for making the plan effective after approval by this Tribunal. On perusal of the documents on record, we are also satisfied that the Resolution Plan is in accordance with sections 30 and 31 of the IBC and also complies with regulations 38 and 39 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

The Resolution Plan with addendum is hereby Approved by this Adjudicating Authority, subject to the observations made in this order. The Resolution Plan with addendum shall form part of this Order. The Resolution Plan with addendum shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor, Resolution Applicant and other stakeholders.

In the present case, the Resolution Applicant in Clause 8.4, has sought for reliefs and concessions under the Resolution Plan and the same are dealt with hereunder;

of the acquisition of control by the Resolution Applicant over the Corporate Debtor pursuant to this Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan and the Corporate Debtor shall not be liable to pay any such Claim and such amounts shall be written off. All notices assessments (whether commenced or not) appellate or other Proceedings pending or threatened in relation to the Corporate Debtor in relation to any period prior to the NCLT Approval Date or arising on account of the acquisition of control by the Resolution Applicant over the Corporate Debtor pursuant to this Resolution Plan or on account of the measures contemplated under this Resolution Plan shall stand terminated and withdrawn and all consequential liabilities if any shall stand extinguished and be considered. as not payable by the Corporate Debtor by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan and any re-assessment revision or other proceedings under the provisions of an indirect tax law would be deemed to be barred in relation to any period prior to the NCLT Approval Date by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan and the Corporate Debtor or the Resolution Applicant shall at no point of time be directly or indirectly held responsible or liable in relation thereto. It is clarified that the Resolution Applicant shall make or cause to be made on behalf of the Corporate Debtor such applications for abatement withdrawal or dismissal of such Proceedings wherever required. The Resolution Applicant shall get maximum support and cooperation from the Resolution Professional for withdrawal of such proceedings.

As far as the question of granting time to comply with the statutory obligations / seeking sanctions from governmental authorities is concerned, the Resolution Applicant is directed to do the same within one year as prescribed under section 31(4) of the Code.

In case of non-compliance with this order or withdrawal of the Resolution Plan by the Successful Resolution Applicant, the Monitoring Committee shall forfeit the Performance Security furnished by the Resolution Applicant in the form of Performance Bank Guarantees.

The Resolution Applicant is directed to make payment of the entire Resolution Plan amount within the time period stipulated under the Resolution Plan i.e. Within 10 Quarters (900 days), failing which the entire amount paid by the Resolution Applicant (including the Performance Guarantee) as on the said date would stand automatically forfeited, without any recourse to this Tribunal.

Certified copy of this Order be issued on demand to the concerned parties, upon due compliance.

Liberty is hereby granted for moving any Application if required in connection with the implementation of this Resolution Plan with addendum.

A copy of this Order is to be submitted to the concerned Office of the Registrar of Companies.

IA(IBC)(Plan)/11/CHE/2025 is allowed; Inv.P(IBC)/11(CHE)/2025;Inv.P(IBC)/5(CHE)/2026; Inv. P / (IBC)/6(CHE)/2026; IA(IBC)/1905(CHE)/2025; IA(IBC)/700 (CHE)/2026 are disposed of; IA(IBC)/1985(CHE)/2025 is dismissed.

The Registry is directed to send e-mail copies of the order forthwith to all the parties and their Learned Counsel for information and for taking necessary steps and also to IBBI.