Commercial wisdom of CoC prevails on capping contingent claims in resolution plan.

The appellants are homebuyers of the corporate debtor.

Their claim was accepted as a contingent claim by the Resolution Professional (RP) during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The resolution plan capped the amount for contingent claims at Rs. 1 crore, which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj) approved this plan via an order dated November 3, 2025, in I.A. Plan No.5/2024 in C.P. (IB) No.39/ALD/2023.

The appellants challenged this order, arguing that the Rs. 1 crore cap was not in accordance with law and that the entire contingent claim should have been covered.

They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.*

The respondent argued that the Rs. 1 crore cap was a proposal by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) approved by the CoC, and the appellants' claim had been rejected by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), with an appeal pending.

The court applied the principle that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is paramount in deciding the payments offered by a resolution plan.

It further considered the specific parameters set out in Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in *Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority* for the validity of a resolution plan in cases of procedural irregularities and mischaracterization of claims.

The court acknowledged that the appellants' claim was accepted as contingent in the CIRP, and the resolution plan capped this at Rs. 1 crore, as offered by the SRA and approved by the CoC.

The tribunal reasoned that the decision regarding payments in a resolution plan falls within the commercial wisdom of the CoC, and therefore, the appellants could not object to the Rs. 1 crore cap.

Regarding the *Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority* judgment, the court distinguished the present case by noting that in *Greater Noida*, the Supreme Court set aside the resolution plan due to the appellant (Greater Noida Authority) not being served notice, the proceedings being ex parte to them, their claim as a secured creditor being ignored, and the plan not meeting the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC and Regulations 37 and 38.

In contrast, the present case did not involve similar procedural irregularities or the mischaracterization of a secured claim, thereby making the precedent inapplicable to the appellants' arguments.

It further concluded that the judgment in *Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority* does not apply to the facts of the present case.

Consequently, the tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

Both appeals were dismissed.