The India Cements Ltd vs Call Express Construction (India) Pvt Ltd

2. CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS – IN BRIEF

ORDER

Present: Shri. Arjun Suresh, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

This application was filed seeking initiation of liquidation process against the Corporate Debtor.

Heard and perused.

The Hon’ble High Court vide an order dated 10.06.2025, has already set aside the order of this Tribunal dated 18.10.2024 initiating liquidation process against the Corporate Debtor. The matter has been remanded to the NCLT to be listed on 01.09.2025 for appropriate orders.

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that four resolution plans have come which are under consideration before the CoC. Meeting of the CoC is to be held on 04.09.2025.

Considering the above, nothing survives in this application and the same is dismissed.

4. To discuss on the Resolution plans received from Resolution applicants.

RP informed the CoC members that she will discuss the Mr. Charu Sachdev's position in all the plans and further informed the members of the Committee of Creditors that the portion of the resolution plans concerning related party home-buyers alone will be sent to her. The brief of the provisions made to related parties under all the Resolution Plans as given hereunder was shared:

DRA Aadhiya South City Projects Private Limited (DRA)	Nil
Ramachandran Retail Private Ltd (Ramachandran)	Allocated Home – certain Conditions
ArisUnitern Re Solutions Private Ltd (ArisUnitern)	Allocated Home – Certain Conditions
SPR Construction Pvt Ltd(SPR)	Allocated Home – Certain Conditions

Ms. Charu Sachdev noted the same and signed off from the google meet.

As per the CoC members decision the resolution applicants' plans given in the hardcopies to the CoC members present were looked into:

SPR's Plan: The RP explained to the members about the revised plan and compared with the earlier plan. The RP had also explained to the members the salient aspects of the revised plan. She said that the number of days has been now only 45 days, and 60 days as compared to 45, 60 and 90 days as per the previous plan. The CoC noted the same.

Ramachandran's Plan: RP explained the plan and also informed the members that he has offered homes to the homebuyers and there is no difference between the Related parties and unrelated parties however, Rs. 2000 per sq. ft to be paid by the home buyers to the Resolution applicant. RP has further informed that the number of days has been increased from 30 days to 90 days as per their earlier plan.

ArisUnitern Plan: RP informed the members that they have given the addendum, and she has informed that homebuyers were offered homes with exit plan however, they have to pay the balance amount as set out in Clause 3 of the addendum. The Committee noted the same.

DRA's Plan: The RP informed the members about DRA's plan. The CoC disagreed with the suggestion given by the DRA to consider the plan with Rs. One crore as EMD. To avoid litigation, CoC decide to put to vote the said plan along with the other plans.

The Committee decided to go for e-voting and the RP explained as per the IBC, 2016, the maximum time allowable for e-voting is only 7 days. She said that she will be opening the e-voting portal after sending the minutes and portal will be closed on the informed date. After deliberations,

After deliberations, the following resolution are decided to put to vote upon before the CoC members.

Option – 1 – Voting percentage to pass the following resolution: 66%.

RESOLVED THAT the CoC members be and are hereby accorded to approve the Resolution Plan submitted by DRA Aadhiya South City Projects Private Limited on 25^th September 2025

RESOLVED FURTHER THAT E-voting portal be and are hereby opened at 3 p.m. from 29^th September 2025 to 3^rd October 2025 and portal will be closed at 3 p.m. on 3^rd October 2025.

Option – 2 – Voting percentage to pass the following resolution: 66%.

RESOLVED THAT the CoC members be and are hereby accorded to approve the Resolution Plan submitted by Ramachandran Retail Private Limited on 25^th September 2025

RESOLVED FURTHER THAT E-voting portal be and are hereby opened at 3 p.m. from 29^th September 2025 to 3^rd October 2025 and portal will be closed at 3 p.m. on 3^rd October 2025.

Option – 3 – Voting percentage to pass the following resolution: 66%.

RESOLVED THAT the CoC members be and are hereby accorded to approve the Resolution Plan submitted by ArisUnitern Re Solutions Private Limited on 25^th September 2025

RESOLVED FURTHER THAT E-voting portal be and are hereby opened at 3 p.m. from 29^th September 2025 to 3^rd October 2025 and portal will be closed at 3 p.m. on 3^rd October 2025.

Option – 4 – Voting percentage to pass the following resolution: 66%.

RESOLVED THAT the CoC members be and are hereby accorded to approve the Resolution Plan submitted by SPR Construction Private Limited on 25^th September 2025 RESOVLED FURTHER THAT E-voting portal be and are hereby opened at 3 p.m. from 29^th September 2025 to 3^rd October 2025 and portal will be closed at 3 p.m. on 3^rd October 2025.

The RP had also explained to the members of the Committee of Creditors that as per the RFRP, the CoC, at its discretion, can also opt for a challenge mechanism. However, this would be time consuming and may lead to complications. The committee of creditors unanimously agreed to not proceed with any challenge mechanism and instead decided to proceed with e-voting of the Resolution Plan. The committee of creditors also approved of a tie-breaker formula whereby in the event that two or more resolution plans garners the same voting share, the successful resolution applicant shall be the resolution applicant who has given the highest value and he will be taken as highest bidder and would be declared as successful resolution applicant. However, this shall be without prejudice to the right of the CoC to decide such other tie-breaker formula, as it may deem fit, in the interest of maximisation of value prior to conclusion of the e-voting.

There being no other subject for discussion, the meeting was concluded by the RP.

3. VALUATION REPORT

4. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE RESOLUTION PLAN

4.7.1. Secured Financial Creditor

4.7.2. Unsecured Financial Creditors not belonging to a class:

Unrelated Party

7.3.

The Unsecured Financial creditors NOT belonging to a class and not a related party whose claims admitted are as under:

Name of Creditor	Amount Claimed	Amount Admitted by RP	Amount Admitted - Voting Rights	% of voting share in CoC
Arrolink Dealers Pvt Ltd	10,58,46,974	10,58,46,974	10,58,46,974	11.96
Goms Electricals Private Limited	53,84,500	53,84,500	53,84,500	0.61
Total	11,12,31,474	11,12,31,474	11,12,31,474	12.57

Related Party

Name of Creditor	Amount Claimed	Amount Admitted by RP	Amount Admitted - Voting Rights	% of voting share in CoC
Call Express Engineering Pvt Ltd	3,09,46,209	3,09,46,209	-	-

(Note: Since Call Express Engineering Pvt Ltd is related party, though the claim is admitted, Call Express Engineering Pvt Ltd is not entitled to participate in CoC meetings and is not entitled to any voting rights.)

4.7.3. Government Authorities

4.7.4. Other Operational Creditors

Note: Claims as admitted by RP have been considered for purposes of Resolution Plan. All other claims not admitted by RP have not been considered for purpose of Resolution Plan.

4.7.5. Unsecured Financial Creditors belonging to Class of Home Buyers

4.7.5.1. Homebuyers – Unrelated Party

4.7.5.2. Claims of Homebuyers – Related Party

Note:

- (a) With regard to Sr. 1 to 6 in Clause 7.8, UDS has been mortgaged by the respective Home buyer to Financial Institution. The Home buyers at Sr. No. 1 to 7 though have been allotted flats, these Home Buyers have not filed any claim with the RP. - (b) S.R. Srinivasan except for payment of Rs. 1 lac does not have any flat allotted in his favour. Though as per IM he made payment towards the flat, there is no construction agreement or UDS registered in his favour nor any allotment letter issued to him. His claim is dealt with separately as no flat has been allotted to him. - (c) The Plan considers only the rights and obligations of Home Buyers. Mortgagee Banks/Financial Institutions shall have no right as against the allotted Flat or UDS or as against the RA or CD upon approval of Plan.

ORDER

5. Settlement of claims as per the amended Resolution Plan 22.09.2025.

5.2. Secured Financial Creditor not belonging to a class

Substitution of Claims

12.2

The RA proposes Settlement of Secured Financial Creditor not belonging to a class as follows:

Sr. No.	Name	Admitted (INR)	R Plan Settled (INR)
1	LIC Housing Finance Limited	55,05,95,350	35,50,00,000

12.3

The RA proposes to make payment to LIC Housing Finance Limited in the following manner - 44% of R Plan settlement within 45 days of approval of Plan by NCLT; - 56 % of R Plan settlement within 60 days of approval of Plan by NCLT;

5.4. Unsecured Financial Creditor not belonging to a class

12.4

The RA proposes Settlement of Unsecured Financial Creditor not belonging to a class as follows

Sr. No.	Name	Admitted	R Plan Settled
1	Arrolink Dealers Pvt Ltd	10,58,46,974	10,58,46,974
2	Goms Electricals Pvt Ltd	53,84,500	53,84,500
	Total	11,12,31,474

12.5

The RA proposes to make payment to Unsecured Financial Creditors in the following manner:

- 30% of R Plan settlement within 45 days of approval of Plan by NCLT; - 30 % of R Plan settlement within 60 days of approval of Plan by NCLT; - 40 % of R Plan Settlement within 90 day of approval of Plan by NCLT

5.6. Financial Creditors Belonging to a class (Home Buyers)

Unrelated Home Buyers

Sr. No.	Name of Home Buyer	Flat Allotted	Total Flat Cost	Minimum amount to be paid as per stage of completion being 50% of total flat cost	Principal Amount Admitted by RP	Amount to be paid by Home buyer to retain flat	Balance amount Payable as per agreement between CD and Home Buyer after receipt of completion certificate
1	Goms E & Sivagami Rani	C14	4,17,45,960	2,08,72,980	2,82,00,000	-	1,35,45,960
2	V. Muthu Srinivasan	C9	3,57,55,331	1,78,77,665	1,39,00,000	39,77,665	1,78,77,666
3	Abirami Rajendran	D6	3,69,38,402	1,84,69,201	2,47,40,000	-	1,21,98,402
4	Rajagopal Ravichandran	A10	5,20,15,210	2,60,07,605	4,75,06,300	-	45,08,910
5	LookmanElectoplast Industries Limited	C10	4,47,58,008	2,23,79,004	25,00,000	1,98,79,004	2,23,79,004
6	Anil Kumar Harsh/Monika Harsh	A3	4,39,43,729	2,19,71,865	3,17,24,000	-	1,22,19,729
	Total				14,85,70,300	2,38,56,669	8,27,29,671

Related Home Buyers

Quit the project

13.3

Where Home Buyers exercise the option to quit the project, such Home Buyers would be paid 30% of their principal amount of claim admitted by the RP and as shown above in the Column under the heading “Principal amount admitted by RP” as part of the Resolution Plan. Such 30% of their claim admitted by RP shall be hereinafter referred to as “Final Settlement amount”. This Final Settlement amount shall be paid in following timeline-

13.3.1

30% of Final Settlement amount within 45 days of approval of Resolution Plan 13.3.2 30% of Final settlement amount within 60 days of approval of Resolution Plan 13.3.3 40% of Final Settlement amount within 90 days of approval of Resolution Plan

13.7

Where the Home Buyers exercise option to remain part of the project, such home buyers shall be treated as 'Continuing home buyers'. The RA understands that 70% of the project Ushera has been constructed and the Home buyers have not made stage wise payments despite such payments being due as per Construction Agreement. The RA with a view to buy peace and to bring about amicable settlement for home buyers is not making claim for any interest for the amounts due. The Continuing Home Buyers shall be required to make payment within 85 days of approval of Resolution Plan of the amounts mentioned as against their names under the heading "amount to be paid by the Home Buyer to retain flat". Where the Continuing Home Buyer fails to make the payment despite exercise of option to remain part of the project, then such Continuing Home buyer shall be treated to have quit the project and shall be deemed to have quit project as per Clause 13.3. The amount due to such defaulting home buyer shall be paid in terms of Clause 13.3 viz. 30% of the principal claim admitted by RP. The timeline for such payment shall be as follows-

13.7.1

(30%) of Final Settlement amount within 120 days of approval of Resolution Plan 13.7.2 (30%) of Final settlement amount within 150 days of approval of Resolution Plan 13.7.3 (40%) of Final Settlement amount within 180 days of approval of Resolution Plan

13.8

Where the Continuing Home Buyers make the payment of the 'amount to be paid by Home buyer to retain flat' to the RA, such Home Buyer shall be considered as part of the Project. The Continuing Home Buyer shall make the balance payment as stated under the column "Balance amount Payable as per agreement between CD and Home Buyer after completion" within 90 days of the RA obtaining completion certificate. Such continuing home buyers shall not be liable to make any payment until the RA obtains completion certificate. 13.9 Where the Continuing Home buyers make the payment of the "Balance amount Payable as per agreement between CD and Home Buyer after completion" within 90 days of the RA obtaining completion certificate", such continuing Home Buyers shall become entitled to own, possess and enjoy the Flat allotted and mentioned as against their names in the table mentioned above and fresh allotment letter confirming allotment of flat and such payment and 'no dues' would be issued by the RA and/or CD. 13.10 Where the RA makes the demand for payment of balance amount as mentioned in Clause 13.9 and the Continuing Home Buyers default in making the payment of the balance amount within 90 days of the RA obtaining completion certificate and within further grace period of 30 days, then the allotment of Flat in favour of Continuing Home Buyer shall stand cancelled without any further act, or deed. The RA shall be entitled to deal with the said Flat and such Flat shall be treated as part of unsold inventory of RA and Continuing Home Buyer shall have no claim to the Flat or UDS or any right in respect of the payment made by Continuing Home Buyer. The RA shall upon sale of Flat to prospective buyer refund the amount paid by Continuing Home Buyer after deducting 15% of such amount paid by Continuing Home Buyer towards interest, marketing costs and expenses incurred by RA. The amount determined as payable to such Continuing Home Buyer who has committed default shall be final and binding on the Defaulting Continuing Home Buyer.

13.11

The RA states that the Specs and the amenities as provided by CD either in the construction agreement or any other documents shall stand terminated forthwith and shall not be binding on the RA. The RA has given the Specs and interior amenities to the extent possible as Appendix V. The RA shall provide industry best standard specs and amenities. The common facilities, amenities, facade, ambience, landscaping shall be decided by the RA. The Home Buyers shall be bound by such amenities and specs as provided by the RA.

13.12

With regard to all the Home buyers, taxes if any, statutory levies, which may be imposed by the State or Central Government shall be payable on actual and such payment shall be over and above the amount due and payable by the Home Buyer. Failure to pay such statutory taxes and levies shall be treated as default by such Home buyer entitling RA to act in respect of such defaulting Home Buyer.

13.13

The title and ownership of apartment units in the Ushera Project that are not allotted to any Person shall be vested exclusively in the RA on the approval of Resolution Plan by NCLT free from all Encumbrances or Claims. The RA shall be free to sell/ encumber/ dispose of such apartment units as it deems fit forthwith. All proceeds from the sale of such apartment units shall exclusively belong to the RA without any claim/liability towards any creditors of the CD.

13.14

The RP shall communicate the options provided to the Home Buyers of Ushera Project by the RA in this plan by email & registered post with acknowledgement to the address of the Home Buyers available with CD within 15 days from the date of Approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC to enable Home Buyers make decision.

14.

Home Buyers in whose favour UDS is registered but no claim is filed and Home Buyers who have not filed claim

14.1

The IM provides details of home buyers who have not provided any claims to the RP or whose UDS is registered but not claim has been provided by such Home Buyer to RP. The RA states that though these Home buyers have not filed their claims, the RP has provided for details of amounts received and accounted in books of accounts. The RA is giving an opportunity to these home buyers to retain their flats provided these Home Buyers provide in writing their choice to continue in project. Where the Home buyers fail to exercise their option, then the claims of these Home buyers shall stand cancelled forthwith and that UDS registered as against the names of Home Buyers shall stand cancelled forthwith. The Bank and/or Financial Institution shall not have any claim as against the RA or CD in respect of Flat or UDS or any other claim.

14.2

Where after exercise of option to continue in the project, the Home buyer defaults in making balance payment within 90 days of issue of completion certificate and demand being made by RA, then the Home Buyer shall have no right to the flat and all his claims, rights stand cancelled without any further act or deed. The RA at no point shall be liable for any payment or refund to these Home buyers or their Mortgagees who have not filed their claims. 14.3 In case of S.R. Srinivasan, he has not been allotted any flat nor there is any agreement with regard to total cost of flat. His claim stands cancelled upon approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT without any further act or deed. 14.4 Upon the failure by these Home buyers to make payment, the RA and CD shall be entitled to deal with the said UDS and Flat as if there are no previous registered sale deeds or claims to the said flat and UDS. The details of home buyers who have not filed claims but UDS is registered and home buyers who have not filed claims but have been allotted flat is given below:

Sr. No.	Name	Flat allotted	Total Flat Cost	Minimum amount to be paid as per stage of completion being 50% of total flat cost	Amount paid as per books of accounts by RP	Amount to be paid by Home buyer to retain flat	Balance amount Payable as per agreement between CD and Home Buyer after completion
1	MPL 2 Wheelers Pvt Ltd	C5	4,30,84,648	2,15,42,324	2,83,00,000	-	1,47,84,648
2	MPL Cars Pvt Ltd	D5	4,16,34,048	2,08,17,024	2,76,73,000	-	1,39,61,048
3	MPL Parts and Services Pvt Ltd	E5	5,43,49,139	2,71,74,570	2,83,22,770	-	2,60,26,369
4	MPL Motors Pvt Ltd	B5	4,30,84,648	2,15,42,324	2,83,00,000	-	1,47,84,648
5	Sreedhar N and Mrs Sunitha S	B3	4,03,52,373	2,01,76,187	2,75,00,000	-	1,28,52,373
6	Sreedhar N	C3	4,03,52,373	2,01,76,187	2,60,00,000	-	1,43,52,373
7	Porunavi Events	E9	5,63,58,139	2,81,79,070	25,00,000	2,56,79,070	2,81,79,069
8	S.R. Srinivasan	-			100,000	-	-

14.

Addition of following as Clause 14.5 and 14.6 after clause 14.4 and renumbering of subsequent clauses in Plan

14.5

In the event, the Home Buyers commit default and/or fail to adhere to the terms (including the corresponding timeline specified therein) as stated in Clause 14.1 and 14.2, then the RP/RA as the case may be, shall be entitled to take steps to cancel the Sale Deed registered in respect of Undivided share of land and the applicable construction agreement. Such cancellation of sale deed and construction agreement shall be binding on the respective Home Buyer and the Mortgagee and such other persons who claim their right through such Home Buyer and/or the Mortgagee.

14.6

Where the respective Home Buyers have mortgaged their corresponding Flat(s) to Lenders, it shall be open for the RA (but not as an obligation) to negotiate and arrive at settlement with the Lenders, and upon such settlement to the Lenders, the RA shall be entitled to deal with the Flat and the corresponding Undivided share of land. RP shall in such situation upon settlement being reported by the RA shall take steps to cancel the Sale deed executed in favour of the Borrower. It is claimed that this Clause 14.6 is without prejudice to the right of the RA under the foregoing Clauses.

5.18. Settlement of Operational Creditors

5.22. Summary of Settlement of Claims

Note:

a. # this amount represents the maximum total value of the plan

b. RP to provide specific details and break-up of CIRP Costs together with approval of COC to determine the specific amount to be allocated to CIRP costs.

c. The total amount allocated under the Plan towards the performance of Resolution Plan is Rs. 48,91,93,778/-, which is the maximum amount allocated under the plan and this amount will be the basis for determining the quantum of Performance bank guarantee in case this RA is a successful resolution applicant. The above amount can be allocated/re-allocated by the CoC amongst the various classes subject to the total value of plan remaining the same.

d. Home Buyers claims are treated as settled in view of the options given in Clause 13 and 14. It is assumed that Home Buyers shall opt for their homes. Therefore the entire claim of Home buyers is treated as settled. However, hypothetically if all home buyers opt to quit the project, there would be maximum additional outflow of Rs. 8,44,51,305/- being (30%) of principal claims of Home buyers admitted by RP.

e. RA has provided for a Contingency Fund of Rs. 50,00,000/- The contingency fund shall be utilised in the following manner and in the order of priority mentioned below-

i.

To pay CIRP costs over and above Rs. 1.25,00,000/- as mentioned above; ii. To provide for expenses incurred between the date of approval of plan by CoC and date of approval of plan by NCLT; iii. To pay for remuneration of RP during the monitoring period; iv. Balance funds if any left would be paid in accordance with waterflow mechanism provided under Section 53 of the Code.

f. Maximum amount payable under the Plan by the RA shall not exceed Rs. 48,91,93,778/-. It is believed that Home Buyers (whose claims are admitted) would opt to continue in the Project and retain their homes. Should home buyers (whose claims are admitted) exercise option to quit the project, then the maximum outflow is Rs. 8.44 crores over and above the maximum amount payable. This amount of Rs. 8.44 crores is not part of maximum amount payable under the Plan by the RA.

g. *The Resolution Plan proposes an amount of Rs. 48,91,93,778/-(including CIRP Costs of Rs. 1.25 crore) which is offered to be settled to the claimants whose claims are admitted by the RP. The RA is providing for settlement of Secured creditor not belonging to any Class, Unsecured Financial creditors not belonging to Class, Operational Creditors and is providing homes to Home Buyers as part of the Plan. Since Home Buyers claims would be settled by virtue of handing over of homes subject to terms and conditions mentioned below, the entire claim of Home Buyers as admitted by the RP is treated as Resolution Plan Value. The total value of plan including claims of Home Buyers is Rs. 93,92,93,831/-. The plan considers the interest of all the stakeholders and provides for equitable distribution of the Maximum amount payable under the Plan. It takes care of interest of Home Buyers by providing them Flats subject to the terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan. The Operational creditors though would not be entitled to any claim by way of security or right to assets of CD, the Plan provides for fair and equitable distribution to the Operational Creditors.

6. TIME LINE FOR PAYMENT AS PER THE RESOLUTION PLAN

Substitution of Clause 17.3 with the following clause

17.3

RA shall make payment to LIC Housing Finance of the Resolution Plan Settlement Amount in the following manner –

Sr. No.	Time period	%	Amount in Rs.
1	45 days of release of approval of Plan by NCLT	44%	15,50,00,000
2	60days of release of approval of Plan by NCLT	56%	20,00,00,000
		100%	35,50,00,000

i. Settlement of Unsecured Financial Creditors not belonging to class

Sr. No.	Time period	%	Amount in Rs.
1	45 days of release of approval of Plan by NCLT	30%	3,33,69,442
2	60 days of release of approval of Plan by NCLT	30%	3,33,69,442
3	90 days of release of approval of Plan by NCLT	40%	4,44,92,590
		100%	11,12,31,474

ii. Settlement of Unsecured Financial Creditors belonging to class

The Home buyers shall be settled as per detailed manner of settlement provided in Clause 13 and 14 mentioned above.

iii. Settlement of Operational Creditors

Operational Creditors shall be paid on or before 40^th day from the date of approval of Resolution Plan by NCLT

7. FEASIBILITY AND VIABILITY OF RESOLUTION PLAN

7.1.

The SRA has proposed to take over the CD, rebrand the CD’s project in its own name and complete the same in a time bound manner with the real estate expertise of the management team of the SRA.

7.2.

The SRA has networth of Rs. 445.07 crores as on 31.03.2025. SRA’s new working capital is stated to be Rs.106.79 crores. Certificate confirming solvency of the SRA for investment of Rs.50 Crores to repay the debts is annexed along with the Resolution Plan.

7.3.

The SRA states that, the total projected investment required under the resolution plan is Rs.122.67 crores. Out of this amount, Rs.47.67 crores is required to meet the financial outlay to various creditors as per the Resolution Plan and a further sum of Rs. 75 crores has been projected to be used as working capital to revive the project.

7.4.

As per amended clause 18.4 of the Resolution Plan, the SRA (through an SPV) will invest a combination of debt and equity into the Corporate Debtor. A sum of Rs. 5 crores will be invested through equity and the remaining amounts under the Resolution Plan shall be invested through Optionally Convertible Debentures.

8. TERM OF RESOLUTION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

22. Term of Resolution Plan and Implementation Schedule

Sr. No.	Activity	Timeline (days)
Part I – Approval Process of the Proposed Plan
1.	Approval of plan by Committee of Creditors	X
2.	Application to NCLT for approval of plan	X+15
3.	Approval of plan by NCLT	X+45 or such other later date when the Resolution Plan may be approved by the Hon’ble NCLT (hereinafter referred to as Y)
Part II – Implementation of Plan & Settlement of Creditors
4.	Extinguishment of all liabilities of the Corporate Debtor, abatement of all legal proceedings, etc, i.e. coming into effect of all the terms of the Resolution Plan as enshrined in Clause 3.3.3(iii) & 4(ii) of this Resolution Plan	Y
5.	Payment of CIRP costs, which is admitted to be settled under this Resolution Plan	Y + 30 Days
6.	Payment to operational creditors including Employees and government creditors if any, who are admitted to be settled under this Resolution Plan	Y+40 Days

Sr. No.	Activity	Timeline (days)
7.	Payment to dissenting financial creditors who are admitted to be settled under this Resolution Plan	Y + 40 Days
8.	Payment to secured financial creditors who are admitted to be settled under this Resolution Plan	Y + 45 Days (Outer time limit of 90 days)
9.	Re-Commencement of the project and infusion of working capital	Y + 45 Days
10.	Hiring Plan to ensure adequate availability of human resources for monitoring of construction, obtaining plan and other approvals, marketing of the project and identification of contractors and consultants to enable the project to be revived as a Going concern	Y + 60 to 90 Days
11.	Overall completion of the project	Y + 1.5 years (outer time limit of 2 years depending on approval of plans and rera approval renewal)

8.1

During the proceedings dated 18.12.2025, the SRA stated that, the SRA contemplates to complete the construction within two years from the date of the approval of the Resolution Plan and handover possession to the allottees within six months thereafter.

9. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF PROJECT AFTER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PLAN:

9.1.

As per Clause 25 of the Resolution Plan, the SRA proposes to constitute a Monitoring Committee comprising of three representatives from side of SRA and three representatives from side of CoC and the Resolution Professional as part of Monitoring Committee. The Resolution Professional shall be the head of the Monitoring Committee. The decisions of monitoring committee shall be taken by majority vote.

9.2.

As per Clause 25.3 of the Resolution Plan, in the event the Resolution Professional refuses to, or is unable to continue post approval of this Plan by the NCLT, the Monitoring committee shall appoint any Insolvency Professional to act as the Monitoring Agent and such person shall discharge all functions of the Monitoring Agent as envisaged under this Plan.

9.3.

Monitoring Committee shall take steps as may be necessary to implement the Resolution

9.4.

The SRA shall appoint such number of directors as the SRA may think necessary upon dissolution of Monitoring committee to the board of Corporate Debtor. SRA may take any of corporate actions as it thinks fit.

9.5.

Although the plan envisages for dissolution of Monitoring committee upon payment to creditors, during the proceedings dated 18.12.2025, SRA submitted that, the monitoring committee shall continue until the completion of the flats. Further, SRA undertook to file quarterly report informing the status of construction of flats.

10. COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF A RESOLUTION PLAN UNDER IBC CODE

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS TRIBUNAL:-

“19.

... In the present case, however, our focus must be on the dispensation governing the process of approval or rejection of resolution plan by the CoC. The CoC is called upon to consider the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code after it is verified and vetted by the resolution professional as being compliant with all the statutory requirements specified in Section 30(2).

62.

...In the present case, however, we are concerned with the provisions of I&B Code dealing with the resolution process. The dispensation provided in the I&B Code is entirely different. In terms of Section 30 of the I&B Code, the decision is taken collectively after due negotiations between the financial creditors who are constituents of the CoC and they express their opinion on the proposed resolution plan in the form of votes, as per their voting share. In the meeting of the CoC, the proposed resolution plan is placed for discussion and after full interaction in the presence of all concerned and the Resolution Professional, the constituents of the CoC finally proceed to exercise their option (business/commercial decision) to approve or not to approve the proposed resolution plan. In such a case, non-recording of reasons would not per-se vitiate the collective decision of the financial creditors. The legislature has not envisaged challenge to the “commercial/business decision” of the financial creditors taken collectively or for that matter their individual opinion, as the case may be, on this count.”

42.

...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).

“55.

Whereas, the discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite per cent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2), the enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution plan provides: (i) the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a specified manner in priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor, (ii) the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed manner, (iii) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor, (iv) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan, (v) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force, (vi) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. The Board referred to is established under Section 188 of the I&B Code. The powers and functions of the Board have been delineated in Section 196 of the I&B Code. None of the specified functions of the Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating the manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought not to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code. The subjective satisfaction of the financial creditors at the time of voting is bound to be a mixed baggage of variety of factors. To wit, the feasibility and viability of the proposed resolution plan and including their perceptions about the general capability of the resolution applicant to translate the projected plan into a reality. The resolution applicant may have given projections backed by normative data but still in the opinion of the dissenting financial creditors, it would not be free from being speculative. These aspects are completely within the domain of the financial creditors who are called upon to vote on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the I&B Code.

58.

Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to the power exercisable by the resolution professional under Section 30(2) of the I&B Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with Section 31(1) of the I&B Code. No other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the I&B Code, which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in the I&B Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers.”

(emphasis supplied)

“73.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the ultimate discretion of what to pay and how much to pay each class or sub-class of creditors is with the Committee of Creditors, but, the decision of such Committee must reflect the fact that it has taken into account maximising the value of the assets of the corporate debtor and the fact that it has adequately balanced the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors. This being the case, judicial review of the Adjudicating Authority that the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors has met the requirements referred to in Section 30(2) would include judicial review that is mentioned in Section 30(2)(e), as the provisions of the Code are also provisions of law for the time being in force. Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of. If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal.”

(emphasis supplied)

76.

The expositions aforesaid make it clear that the decision as to whether corporate debtor should continue as a going concern or should be liquidated is essentially a business decision; and in the scheme of IBC, this decision has been left to the Committee of Creditors, comprising of the financial creditors. Differently put, in regard to the insolvency resolution, the decision as to whether a particular resolution plan is to be accepted or not is ultimately in the hands of the Committee of Creditors; and even in such a decision making process, a resolution plan cannot be taken as approved if the same is not approved by votes of at least 66% of the voting share of financial creditors. Thus, broadly put, a resolution plan is approved only when the collective commercial wisdom of the financial creditors, having at least 2/3rd majority of voting share in the Committee of Creditors, stands in its favour.

77.

In the scheme of IBC, where approval of resolution plan is exclusively in the domain of the commercial wisdom of CoC, the scope of judicial review is correspondingly circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 31 as regards approval of the Adjudicating Authority and in Section 32 read with Section 61 as regards the scope of appeal against the order of approval.

77.1.

Such limitations on judicial review have been duly underscored by this Court in the decisions above referred, where it has been laid down in explicit terms that the powers of the Adjudicating Authority dealing with the resolution plan do not extend to examine the correctness or otherwise of the commercial wisdom exercised by the CoC. The limited judicial review available to Adjudicating Authority lies within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code, which would essentially be to examine that the resolution plan does not contravene any of the provisions of law for the time being in force, it conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board, and it provides for: (a) payment of insolvency resolution process costs in priority; (b) payment of debts of operational creditors; (c) payment of debts of dissenting financial creditors; (d) for management of affairs of corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan; and (e) implementation and supervision of the resolution plan.

77.2.

The limitations on the scope of judicial review are reinforced by the limited ground provided for an appeal against an order approving a resolution plan, namely, if the plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force; or there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period; or the debts owed to the operational creditors have not been provided for; or the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority; or the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board

77.6.1.

The assessment about maximisation of the value of assets, in the scheme of the Code, would always be subjective in nature and the question, as to whether a particular resolution plan and its propositions are leading to maximisation of value of assets or not, would be the matter of enquiry and assessment of the Committee of Creditors alone. When the Committee of Creditors takes the decision in its commercial wisdom and by the requisite majority; and there is no valid reason in law to question the decision so taken by the Committee of Creditors, the adjudicatory process, whether by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority, cannot enter into any quantitative analysis to adjudge as to whether the prescription of the resolution plan results in maximisation of the value of assets or not. The generalised submissions and objections made in relation to this aspect of value maximisation do not, by themselves, make out a case of interference in the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors in its commercial wisdom

78.

To put in a nutshell, the Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is well defined and circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Code read with the parameters delineated by this Court in the decisions above referred. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority is also circumscribed by the limited grounds of appeal provided in Section 61 of the Code. In the adjudicatory process concerning a resolution plan under IBC, there is no scope for interference with the commercial aspects of the decision of the CoC; and there is no scope for substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan approved by the CoC. Within its limited jurisdiction, if the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, would find any shortcoming in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors, for re-submission after satisfying the parameters delineated by Code and exposited by this Court."

“38. Mandatory contents of the resolution plan.

[(4) (a) The committee shall consider setting up a monitoring committee for monitoring and supervising the implementation of the resolution plan.

(b)

The monitoring committee may consist of the resolution professional or any other insolvency professional, or any other person, including representatives of the committee and representatives of resolution applicant(s), as its members:

Provided that where the resolution professional is proposed to be part of the monitoring committee, the monthly fee payable to him shall not exceed the monthly fee received by him during the corporate insolvency resolution process.

(c)

The monitoring committee shall submit quarterly reports to the Adjudicating Authority regarding the status of implementation of resolution plan.]”