CHENNAI: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by Central Bank of India against the resolution plan for bankrupt real estate firm Neptune Developers Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal ruled that as a dissenting financial creditor, the bank cannot block a plan that has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) using its “commercial wisdom.”
The order is a major relief for over 2,000 homebuyers who have been waiting for more than a decade for possession of flats in Neptune’s stalled projects, including its township in Kalyan near Mumbai.
A two-member NCLAT bench, headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, upheld the earlier order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that had cleared a Rs 390-crore resolution plan submitted by Shree Naman Developers Pvt. Ltd. The plan was endorsed by 85.35% of the CoC in March 2023 and formally approved by the NCLT on March 25, 2025.
The appellate tribunal said there was “no ground” to interfere with the NCLT’s approval. It also made clear that dissenting creditors are only entitled to payments as defined under Section 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and cannot challenge valuations or distribution once the CoC has made its decision.
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Neptune Developers began in July 2021.
Shree Naman Developers’ resolution plan, worth around Rs 390.65 crore, includes allotment of units to homebuyers and settlement of dues to financial creditors.
Central Bank of India, which held 11.83% voting share in the CoC, opposed the plan and later appealed, arguing against the valuation and distribution.
Why it matters
The ruling removes the last major legal hurdle and clears the way for implementation of the plan. This is expected to fast-track delivery of long-delayed homes, bringing long-awaited relief to buyers who have faced financial and emotional stress for years.
The case reinforces a key principle under India’s insolvency law: the CoC’s commercial wisdom on matters of viability and distribution is binding on all stakeholders, including dissenting creditors. Unless there is a clear legal violation, tribunals are unlikely to interfere.