NCLAT Sets Aside NCLT Delhi Order Sending Adel Landmarks Plan Back to CoC, Flags Unwarranted Interference

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently set aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal that had sent the resolution plan of real estate developers, Adel Landmarks Ltd., back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration.

The appellate tribunal held that the direction amounted to an "unwarranted" interference with the commercial wisdom of the creditors, even though the plan had already been approved with an 82.66% voting share after multiple rounds of deliberations.

A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra highlighted that sending the plan back would prolong the process and directly harm thousands of homebuyers who have already waited years for possession.

“Furthermore, when the resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC wherein the Class of Creditors who largely belonged to the middle class gentry some of whom were aged and senior citizens who had invested their entire savings in the project of Corporate Debtor and were now eagerly looking forward to a time-bound resolution process and hoping to get ownership and possession of units for which they had paid more than a decade back it goes without saying that their hopes would be dashed to the ground if the impugned order is allowed to prevail over the commercial wisdom of the CoC. We do not see any cogent basis for remanding back of the plan and pushing it into the quagmire of delay at a time when the home-buyers have already waited for nearly 14 years for delivery of their units.", the court observed

The appeal was filed by Art Construction Pvt Ltd, the successful resolution applicant, through its authorised representative Akshay Dhawan, challenging the February 27, 2026 order of the tribunal.

Adel Landmarks Ltd. was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process on December 5, 2018. The appellant's resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors in September 2022 after negotiations.

Despite that approval, the adjudicating authority had directed reconsideration of the plan on five counts. These included the treatment of properties under provisional attachment by the Enforcement Directorate, certain properties in Bengaluru, claims over 30 flats in a housing project, licences issued by the Department of Town and Country Planning, and claims of homebuyers who had not filed them earlier.

Before the appellate tribunal, the appellant said the concerns flagged by the NCLT had already been considered by the Committee of Creditors, and there was no statutory breach or material irregularity to justify reopening a concluded decision. It also pointed out how late the remand came, nearly seven years into the insolvency process and about four years after the plan had been approved.

The resolution professional backed this position, maintaining that the plan met the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The issues raised, it said, were already accounted for. The Enforcement Directorate's attachment remained provisional and protected under law, disputed properties were under adjudication, the flats in question were secured through undertakings, and the plan had made provisions for licence-related obligations.

Homebuyers, who form 41% of the voting share in the Committee of Creditors, also opposed sending the plan back. Their representative told the tribunal that allottees had already waited over a decade, and any further delay would only deepen their losses.

Examining each of the five grounds, the appellate tribunal found that they had either been addressed in the resolution plan or were already subject to pending proceedings and did not justify sending the plan back to the creditors.

It reiterated that under Sections 30 and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the adjudicating authority's role is limited to examining whether a resolution plan meets statutory requirements and that it cannot substitute its own view for the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors.

Finding no material irregularity or violation of law in the approval of the plan, the appellate tribunal set aside the order and restored the application for approval of the resolution plan before the tribunal for consideration in accordance with law.