Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 6255
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH
MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, ATUL CHATURVEDI, JJ
SURENDER KUMAR SINGHAL – Appellant
Versus
ANAND SONBHADRA – Respondent
I.A. NO. 3991 OF 2025 | C.P. NO. (IB) 1059 (ND) OF 2018
For the Applicants: Mr. Aditya Gauri, Mr. Amar Vivek, Ms. Damini Srestha, Mr. Anant Jain, Mr. Aryan Chhabra
For the RP: Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Vaishnavi
The NCLT lacks jurisdiction to grant relief that modifies an approved Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such actions undermine the finality and objectives of the insolvency process.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) - The Applicants sought directions for conducting a structural audit and related approvals for a project. The NCLT ruled that such directions would effectively modify an approved Resolution Plan, which is not permissible under the Code. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 12, 13)
(B) Jurisdiction - The tribunal held that once a Resolution Plan is approved, it attains finality. Any requests that effectively seek to alter the approved Plan cannot be entertained under the guise of facilitating implementation, as it undermines the sanctity of the IBC’s objectives. (Paras 6, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The Applicants, having submitted a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors, sought to implement a structural audit for a project due to ongoing issues that jeopardize its viability while an appeal against this Plan was pending.
Findings of Court:
The Application was dismissed due to lack of maintainability, as the relief sought would modify an irrevocable Resolution Plan, infringing upon settled legal principles confirming the binding nature of approved Plans under the IBC.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the NCLT could entertain an application that sought to modify the terms of an approved Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Section 60(5) cannot be utilized for revisiting or varying approved Resolution Plans, maintaining that modifications post-approval would defeat the objectives of the IBC.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER
PER: MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present Application has been filed under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) r/w rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 on behalf of the Applicants seeking the following reliefs:
i. Direct the Chairman of the Interim Monitoring Committee to conduct Structural Audit of the project "SHUBHKAMNA CITY" commenced by M/s Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd situated at Gh-02, Sector 01, Greater Noida, the cost of which shall be born by the Applicants.
ii. Allow the Applicants to place the "Structural Audit" same before this Hon'ble Bench.
iii. Direct Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, to provide necessary approvals required for construction of project "SHUBHKAMNA CITY" in terms of the Resolution Plan and allow the Applicants to proceed with implementation of the Plan.
iv. Allow the Applicants herein to prefer an application seeking approval of the remedial cost incurred in retro-fitting of the structure, if any, on the basis of the Audit Report. v. Any other relief as deemed appropriate in the interests of equity, justice and fair play.
2.This Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 22.08.2025 directed the Applicant to file an affidavit of maintainability of the present Application.
Relevant extract of the order dated 22.08.2025 is reproduced herein below:
“Mr. Amar Vivek, Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present through VC. Mr. Karan Kohli, Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional is present physically. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
Applicant is directed to file an Affidavit on maintainability of the present application within 07 days.”
3.SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT WITH REGARD TO MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION:
i. The Applicants are the Successful Resolution Applicants in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Plan submitted by the Applicants was approved by the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") with a voting percentage of 85.57%.
ii. Pursuant to the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC, an Application seeking approval of Resolution Plan was preferred before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority ("GNIDA/Respondent") had preferred objections to the said Resolution Plan claiming to be treated as a "Secured Creditor". However, the said Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT vide the Order dated 12.09.2022.
iii. It was submitted that GNIDA has preferred an Appeal bearing CA(AT) (INS.) 183 of 2023 against the Order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, seeking rejection/modification of the Resolution Plan.
iv. In terms of the Resolution Plan as submitted by the SRA:
a. The "Effective Date" for effectuating the implementation of the Resolution Plan is yet to arrive.
b. While the "Effective Date" is awaited as a result of the pendency of the Company Appeal bearing CA(AT)(ins.) 183/2023, the project of the Corporate Debtor remains in a state of severe jeopardy wherein, due to damage to the sewage pipeline, the project is adversely affected as a result of waterlogging.
c. For the Plan to be successfully implemented, it is imperative that the project of the Corporate Debtor situated at Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh continues to remain viable.
v. However, as on date, due to leakage in the sewage lines of the running parallel to the land of the Corporate Debtor, excessive structural damage has been caused to the assets. In the event the requisite repair work is not carried out, the costs for the completion of the structure of the Corporate Debtor shall increase exponentially, unless urgent retrofitting and repairs are directed on the basis of the structural audit.
vi. As on date the Respondent has declined to co-operate in carrying on the necessary repair work. Therefore, the maintainability of the Application rests on whether, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to i
