| The appeals were directed against orders of the NCLT, by which the appellants, financial creditors of a real estate CD, had unsuccessfully sought replacement of the IRP. The NCLAT recorded that after the impugned order the home buyers, who constitute creditors in a class, requisitioned a meeting by email dated 18.03.2026, that the IRP was bound under Regulation 18 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 to convene a meeting requisitioned by 33% of the CoC, that the thirteenth CoC meeting was accordingly convened on 24.03.2026, and that the agenda to appoint the IRP as RP was approved with 67.42% voting share. Since these developments post-dated the impugned order, the NCLAT declined to examine the legality of that appointment, leaving the parties to their remedies before the appropriate forum subject to limitation. On the merits, it noted that the allottees in the majority in the CoC support the IRP while the appellants, holding 32.43% voting share, level allegations against him, that the voting share of the financial creditors is continuously decreasing as claims of home buyers are admitted, and that the appellants' complaint to the IBBI produced no result beyond a direction to the IRP to approach the AA for carrying the process forward. The NCLAT held that the role of the IRP is to remain neutral, free from bias and fair in conduct, but that there may be circumstances in which not all stakeholders will be satisfied, particularly where the continuous admission of allottees' claims reduces the financial creditors to a minority. It observed that conducting insolvency where the business of the CD is real estate is inherently complex, since financial creditors are interested principally in recovery of money while allottees are interested in timely completion of the project and possession of their homes, and that standing amid these conflicting interests it is not always possible for the IRP or RP to keep all stakeholders satisfied. Holding that decisions on change, replacement or continuation of the IRP or RP must be left to the wisdom of the CoC, with tribunals interfering only in exceptional circumstances which were lacking, the NCLAT dismissed both appeals with no order as to costs. |
