2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 646

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar Goyal – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 322 of 2025

An approved resolution plan attains finality and cannot be re-agitated. A creditor who fails to challenge the plan within the prescribed time cannot later raise claims regarding its status or the quantification of its dues.

Headnote:

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 3(30), 3(31), 7, 31, 61 - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - Sections 13, 13A, 14 - Approval of resolution plan - Finality of plan - Once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority and not interfered with by the Appellate Tribunal, the same attains finality and cannot be re-agitated. (Para 31) - A resolution plan can only be challenged on limited grounds under Section 61 within a specific timeframe. (Para 50) - After approval of a resolution plan, a successful resolution applicant cannot be saddled with additional liabilities not part of the plan. (Para 49, relying on Ghanshyam Das Mishra)

(B) Res Judicata - Principle of constructive res judicata applies when the same issues have been raised and adjudicated in earlier proceedings. (Para 51) - Challenging the same order again after it has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court is a misuse of process. (Paras 39-40)

(C) Implementation of Resolution Plan - Co-operation of parties - A successful resolution applicant must implement the plan as per its terms and cannot make implementation conditional upon acceptance of the plan amount by a creditor. (Paras 36, 48) - A creditor who does not assist in implementation of a resolution plan can be burdened with costs. (Para 53)

Facts of the case:
The Corporate Debtor, which had taken land on lease from the Appellant (a development authority), went into CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC. The Appellant, claiming to be a secured operational creditor by virtue of statutory charge under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, submitted a claim which was only partially admitted by the RP. The resolution plan was approved by the CoC and then by the Adjudicating Authority on 24.08.2023. The Appellant challenged the approval plan in various proceedings, including an appeal that was dismissed as time-barred, a recall application that was dismissed, and an appeal against the recall which was dismissed by the NCLAT and subsequently by the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The NCLAT found that the approval of the resolution plan on 24.08.2023 had attained finality and could not be reopened. The Appellant was re-agitating the same issues which had already been decided, amounting to res judicata. The SRA tried to implement the plan but was hindered by the Appellant's non-cooperation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Appellant could re-agitate the issue of its status as a secured creditor and the quantification of its dues after the resolution plan had attained finality, despite the plan having been unsuccessfully challenged in previous proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order approving the resolution plan had attained finality. The Appellant, having unsuccessfully challenged the plan in multiple proceedings, could not be allowed to re-agitate the same issues. Such conduct was a waste of judicial time and hindered the implementation of the insolvency resolution process.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs of ₹1 lakh imposed on the Appellant. Interlocutory application of the SRA also dismissed. Directions issued for implementation of the plan. 

Table of Content
1. factual and procedural background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
2. appellant's arguments and claim status (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 31 , 40)
3. court's analysis and findings on res judicata (Para 7 , 39 , 53 , 54)
4. doctrine of res judicata applies here (Para 51 , 52)
5. final orders and costs imposed (Para 55)

J U D G M E N T

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Arun Baroka, Member (Technical)]

1.This is an Appeal against the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi ("Adjudicating Authority") in I.A. No. 3918/2024 in C.P (IB) No. 1035/2020. This I.A. No. 3918/2024 was seeking the recall and setting aside of the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed in another IA No. 1454/2024 in the same CP.

Brief relevant facts are as follows:

2. M/s Swati Health and Education Services Private Limited was allotted 20000 sq. mtrs. of the land on lease basis by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh vide a lease on 26.06.2013. M/s Swati Health and Education Services Private Limited defaulted to pay the instalments as per schedule/reschedule and GNIDA issued default notice and show cause notice raising the demand for the defaulted amount against premium, additional compensation and lease rent and penalties for time extension related to the completion of construction.

3. In another development on a petition filed under Section 7 by one of the Financial Creditor namely Eclear Leasing and Finance Private Limited. The CIR proceedings were initiated against M/s Swati Health and Education Services Private Limited vide order dated 04.03.2022 in CP (IB) No. 1035/ND/2020.

4. The Appellant herein i.e. GNIDA had submitted a claim of Rs.21,41,95,542/- with the Resolution Professional in regard to the CIR Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor – M/s Swati Health and Education Services Private Limited. However, the RP admitted only an amount of Rs. 18,24,96,973/-. The Resolution Professional filed an IA No. 6324/2022 for approval of the Resolution Plan dated 15.11.2022 and another IA No. 2551/2023 was filed by the Appellant opposing the plan. Both of them were heard together and disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2023. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Appellant, GNIDA is a secured Operational Creditor.

5. Appellant - Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is the owner of the land in respect of which relief has been prayed in the present appeal. It has allotted the set plot through a lease deed dated 26/06/2013 to the Corporate Debtor to develop a project on the set plot as per the terms and conditions laid down in the lease deed. The GNIDA has also handed over the possession of the set plot of land to the corporate debtor. The Corporate Debtor is in possession of the said premises and is liable for lease rental and lease premium payments during the CIRP period.

6. The Appellant claims that, having first charge upon the demised premises for the amount of unpaid instalments, charges, interest and other dues, the claim of the GNIDA should have been treated at par with the secured creditors. The Appellant GNIDA claims that it is a secured creditor within the meaning of Section 3(30) and Section 3(31) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and Section 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. Appellant claims that the Adjudicating Authority approved the resolution plan without directing the Committee of Creditors to reconsider incorporating the status of GNIDA as a secured creditor in the resolution plan. Instead, its dues were treated on par with unsecured creditors, significantly impairing GNIDA's ability to recover the outstanding amount and thereby contravening the established position under both the IBC 2016 and Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document