NCLT Delhi Rules Section 60(5) IBC Cannot Be Invoked To Modify or Reopen an Approved Resolution Plan
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench–II, has held that an application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) cannot be used to revisit, revise, or modify the terms of a resolution plan once it has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdiction under Section 60(5)—which enables adjudication of issues arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution process—is not meant to reopen a plan that has already attained finality.
The ruling came in an application filed by the Successful Resolution Applicants (SRAs) of the Shubhkamna City (Pvt.) Ltd. project in Greater Noida. The SRAs sought directions for a structural audit of the project and permission to carry out retrofitting or repairs based on the audit report. They argued that such directions were essential for proper implementation of the resolution plan, as the structural status of the buildings required independent technical assessment.
The Bench comprising Manni Sankariah Shanmugha Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) dismissed the application. Referring to the scope of Section 60(5), the Tribunal held that the provision cannot be used “under the guise of implementation” to seek modifications that directly or indirectly change the terms of an approved resolution plan. The Tribunal reiterated the legal principle that “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly,” and held that permitting such directions would amount to reopening the plan.
The Tribunal observed that the relief sought by the SRAs—which required appointing an agency for structural audit and permitting repairs—would inevitably affect the financial outlay, timelines, and implementation structure of the plan. Any such modification, even if framed as a measure to ensure proper implementation, would substantially vary the plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the NCLT.
The Tribunal also noted that the resolution plan for Shubhkamna City is currently pending scrutiny before the NCLAT, pursuant to an appeal filed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA). While the appeal is pending, the NCLT cannot entertain fresh claims or directions that may interfere with the issues sub-judice before the Appellate Tribunal.
In support of its reasoning, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd. (2022), which held that once a resolution plan has been approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, it becomes binding and irrevocable. The Supreme Court in Ebix clarified that allowing post-approval modifications would undermine the sanctity, certainty, and finality of the resolution process under the IBC.
Referring to these principles, the NCLT held that permitting a structural audit or retrofitting after approval would amount to modifying the plan in material terms, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Since the plan had already been approved and was pending before the appellate forum, the application under Section 60(5) was not maintainable.
The NCLT dismissed the SRAs’ application, holding that Section 60(5) cannot be invoked to seek directions that alter or reopen an approved resolution plan. Any such attempt is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, especially when the plan is already pending in appeal before the NCLAT.
Appearance
For Applicant: Advocates Aditya Gauri, Amar Vivek, Damini Srestha, Anant Jain, Aryan Chhabra
For Resolution Professional: Advocates Abhishek Anand, Karan Kohli, Vaishnavi
Cause Title: Surender Kumar Singhal and Anr. Vs. Anand Sonbhadra and Anr.
Case No: I.A. NO. 3991 OF 2025 IN C.P. NO. (IB) 1059 (ND) OF 2018
Coram: Manni Sankariah Shanmugha Sundaram (Judicial Member), Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member)
