Individual homebuyer lacks locus standi to challenge claim admissions or Resolution Plan approved by majority.

The Corporate Debtor (Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.) was admitted into CIRP on 27.02.2023

The Appellant, a homebuyer with an admitted claim of Rs. 96,47,000, challenged the Resolution Professional's (RP) admission of approximately Rs. 200 crore in other claims, alleging they were fraudulent or not reflected in statutory books

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) had already approved a Resolution Plan on 19.03.2024 with a 99.21% vote share

The Appellant filed I.A. No. 603/2025 seeking re-verification of claims and a forensic audit, which the Adjudicating Authority dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000, citing lack of locus standi and the belated nature of the application

Whether an individual homebuyer has the locus standi to maintain an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC to challenge the admission of claims of other creditors after the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC

Whether allegations of fraudulent claim admission by a Resolution Professional, supported by a whistleblower report, warrant a re-verification of the creditor list post-approval of the Resolution Plan

The court primarily applied Section 21(6A)(b) of the IBC and Regulation 16A of the CIRP Regulations, which mandate that homebuyers, as a class of creditors, must be represented by an Authorized Representative (AR)

It relied heavily on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Ltd. (2022), which holds that the democratic decision of the majority within a class binds the minority, and individual homebuyers cannot maintain independent challenges to a plan or the process once the class has voted

The court also applied the principle that fraud allegations must be supported by "unimpeachable evidence" rather than conjectures

The Tribunal reasoned that the Appellant, as a minority member of the homebuyer class, is legally bound by the 99.21% majority vote in favor of the Resolution Plan

Since the law requires representation through an Authorized Representative, an individual homebuyer cannot independently seek to disqualify other creditors' claims, especially when such actions do not concern their personal rights but aim to unsettle the CoC's composition

The Tribunal found the Appellant's allegations were "founded on conjectures" and "speculative assertions" derived from a third-party whistleblower, which did not meet the evidentiary standard required to prove fraud

Furthermore, it noted that suspended directors had previously raised identical unsuccessful challenges, suggesting the Appellant’s application was a "proxy" litigation intended to obstruct the process at an advanced stage

The court affirmed the Adjudicating Authority’s order, including the imposition of Rs. 25,000 in costs, ruling that the application was a "roving and fishing enquiry" aimed at subverting the CIRP

Case dismissed