Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goel & Ors. vs Kunwarpreet Singh Resolution Professional Of Raghupati Construction Private Limited & Ors.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 331 of 2026
&
I.A. No. 1248 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mukesh Kumar Goel & Ors. …Appellants

Versus
Kunwarpreet Singh
Resolution Professional & Anr.

…Respondents

Present:
For Appellants : Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondents : Mr. Dinkar Singh and Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocates.

Ms. Anshika Verma, Advocate for RP.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 332 of 2026
&
I.A. No. 1251 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mukesh Kumar Goel & Ors. …Appellants

Versus
Kunwarpreet Singh
Resolution Professional & Anr.

…Respondents

Present:
For Appellants : Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondents : Mr. Dinkar Singh and Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocates.

Ms. Anshika Verma, Advocate for RP.
O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)
13.03.2026 : Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. These two appeals have been filed challenging the order dated
03.11.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj) in I.A. Plan No.5/2024 in C.P. (IB)
No.39/ALD/2023.
3. Appellant claims to be homebuyers of the corporate debtor who has filed
their claim which was accepted as contingent claim by the Resolution
Professional (RP) and in the resolution plan for contingent claim, an amount
of Rs.1 crore has been capped which plan has been approved by the impugned
order. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that
cap of Rs.1 crore is not in accordance with law and that when contingent
claim was accepted the entire amount should have been covered. He further
relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority’ Vs. ‘Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.’ in
[Civil Appeal No.7590-7591/2023] and submits that in similar matter, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the plan to Committee of Creditors (CoC)
for reconsideration.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Dinkar Singh appearing for the respondent
submits that it was the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) proposal for
capping of Rs.1 crore which was approved by the CoC and on the said
proposal, the appellant’s claim was not accepted, since the said claim was
already rejected by the RERA Authority against which the appeal has been
filed by the appellant which is pending.

5. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 331 & 332 of 2026
2 of 4

6. There is no dispute between the parties that claim of the appellant was
accepted as contingent claim in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
(CIRP) and in the resolution plan an amount capping to Rs. 1 crore was made,
as offered by the SRA which has been approved by the CoC. On the question
as to what payments are offered by the resolution plan, it is the commercial
wisdom of the CoC to take a decision and when the cap of Rs.1 crore for
contingent claim has been approved by the CoC, we are of the view that the
appellant cannot be heard in objecting to the capping of Rs.1 crore.
7. Now coming to the judgment relied by the appellant in ‘Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority’ (supra), in the said case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 55 has directed as follows:
“55. As we have found that neither NCLT nor NCLAT
while deciding the application /appeal of the appellant
took note of the fact that,- (a) the appellant had not
been served notice of the meeting of the COC; (b) the
entire proceedings up to the stage of approval of the
resolution plan were ex parte to the appellant; (c) the
appellant had submitted its claim, and was a secured
creditor by operation of law, yet the resolution plan
projected the appellant as one who did not submit its
claim; and (d) the resolution plan did not meet all the
parameters laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 30
of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP
Regulations, 2016, we are of the considered view that
the appeals of the appellant are entitled to be allowed
and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order
dated 24.11.2022 is set aside. The order dated
04.08.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the
resolution plan is set aside. The resolution plan shall
be sent back to the COC for re-submission after
satisfying the parameters set out by the Code as
exposited above. There shall be no order as to costs.”

8. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority’ (supra), the claim was filed by Greater
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 331 & 332 of 2026
3 of 4

Noida Industrial Development Authority which was not accepted which was
held to be secured creditors, in the above background, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has set aside the plan and remanded the matter for CoC to consider
the claim of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as secured
creditors. The said judgment does not come to any aid of the appellant in the
facts of the present case.
9. We thus do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned at
the instance of the appellant.
Both the appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan]
Chairperson


[Barun Mitra]
Member (Technical)
himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 331 & 332 of 2026
4 of 4