Adjudicating Authority cannot remand CoC-approved resolution plan absent material irregularity or statutory violation, respecting CoC's commercial wisdom under IBC.

J U D G M E N T

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC” in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 27.02.2026 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Court-III) in I.A. No. 1817 of 2023 in C.P.(IB) No. 1083 (PB) of 2018. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed IA No. 1817 of 2023 filed before it by the Resolution Professional-Respondent No.1 and remanded the resolution plan dated 23.06.2022 alongwith Addendum dated 23.08.2022 submitted by the Appellant-Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA” in short) to the Committee of Creditors (“CoC” in short) for its reconsideration. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant-SRA has come up in appeal. 2. Coming to the brief facts of the case, the Corporate Debtor-M/s Adel Landmarks Ltd. was admitted into CIRP on 05.12.2018. The Interim Resolution Professional who was subsequently confirmed as the Resolution Professional (“RP” in short) had invited EoI in Form-G. The Appellant-SRA had also submitted their plan which underwent several rounds of deliberations and negotiations with the CoC to be finally approved with a vote- share of 82.66% in the 27^th meeting of the CoC held on 15.09.2022. The RP thereafter issued a Letter of Intent (“LoI” in short) in favour of the SRA who in turn furnished the Performance Bank Guarantee on 13.12.2022. The RP- Respondent No.1 submitted IA No. 1817 of 2023 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking approval of the resolution plan approved by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the prayer contained in IA No. 1817 of 2023 and remanded the resolution plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in the light of developments in the following five areas:

(i) treatment of projects/properties which are under attachment by virtue of Provisional Attachment Order (“PAO” in short) dated 09.01.2026 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED” in short).

(ii) treatment of properties belonging to Mr. K.H. Khan and Mrs. Shaheda Begum in Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “Khan Property”).

(iii) treatment in respect of 30 flats in Project Era Divine Court.

(iv) treatment of the licenses issued by Department of Town and Country Planning (“DTCP” in short).

(v) reconsideration of the pending claims of home-buyers who had not submitted their plan earlier.

Aggrieved by the above directions contained in the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-SRA.

3. Making submissions on behalf on the Appellant, Shri Krishnendu Datta and Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Ld. Sr. Counsels submitted that all the grounds on which the Adjudicating Authority had remanded the resolution plan back to the CoC for reconsideration were untenable in that they relate to matters which have either been already considered at length by the CoC or continue to remain pending for adjudication before some other competent fora of law or relate to proceedings which stand protected by operation of Section 32A of the IBC. It was vehemently contended that when the CoC had taken a well- considered commercial decision with more than requisite majority to approve the resolution plan of the Appellant, which plan not having been objected to by any stake-holder including the Financial Creditors, the Adjudicating Authority clearly transcended its jurisdiction by directing that a concluded comme