Resolution Plan Approved by 83.46% Creditors Cannot Be Challenged by Lone Homebuyer u/s 60(5) of IBC [Read Order]
The tribunal noted that although individuals may have different opinions, the vote cast by the majority has to be taken into consideration.
![Resolution Plan Approved by 83.46% Creditors Cannot Be Challenged by Lone Homebuyer u/s 60(5) of IBC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/18/2049889-resolution-plan-creditors-taxscan.webp "Resolution Plan Approved by 83.46% Creditors Cannot Be Challenged by Lone Homebuyer u/s 60(5) of IBC [Read Order]")
The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that the resolution plan approved by 83.46% of creditors cannot be challenged by a lone homebuyer under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. Coming to the facts of the case, Ramprasad Vishvanath Gupta, a homebuyer, has filed three separate appeals before the NCLAT...
The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that the resolution plan approved by 83.46% of creditors cannot be challenged by a lone homebuyer under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
Coming to the facts of the case, Ramprasad Vishvanath Gupta, a homebuyer, has filed three separate appeals before the NCLAT challenging orders passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench. The first appeal (Company Appeal No. 442 of 2025) pertains to the rejection of his application under Section 43 of the IBC, which sought avoidance of preferential transactions. The second (Appeal No. 474 of 2025) challenges the NCLT’s refusal to reject the resolution plan submitted by La Mer Developers Limited in consortium with Neel Builders. The third appeal (No. 559 of 2025) arises from the NCLT’s approval of the resolution plan itself.
The second appeal in this case was the appellant challenging the order passed by the NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal), which dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the appellant raising objections to the resolution plan of La Mer Developers Limited and Neel Builders & Developers.
Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here
The main issue before the adjudicating authority was whether the applicant, being just one homebuyer out of about 600 homebuyers and resettlers, has the locus standi to approach this tribunal.
The adjudicating authority noted that “ the applicant being part of a class of homebuyers, the majority of whom have already voted in favour of the resolution plan of respondent No. 2, has no independent locus standi to raise objections with regard to the manner of conduct of CIRP, and hence, the present IA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.”
The NCLAT observed that the appellant, being one of the 600 homebuyers of the corporate debtor, is part of the class of financial creditors. The tribunal noted that although individuals may have different opinions, the vote cast by the majority has to be taken into consideration.
The bench noted that in the present case, 83.46% of the creditors in the class have voted in favour of the plan, and thus the adjudicatory authority was right.
GST READY RECKONER: Complete Topic wise Circulars, Instructions & Guidelines Click here
The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) upheld the impugned order.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
