If the approved resolution plan in your builder's insolvency cuts your refund or asks you to pay more for the flat, you can challenge it only on narrow grounds, and usually not on your own. Where the allottees' class voted for the plan, the Supreme Court held in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v NBCC (India) Ltd that no individual homebuyer or association can maintain a challenge to it. A haircut is not unlawful by itself either. What remains is an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 within thirty days, extendable by no more than fifteen, on the grounds in section 61(3), and a separate route where the plan has been applied to you wrongly, such as a verified claim put in the category meant for buyers who never filed.
Part of the RERA and homebuyer disputes practice at S Jain & Attorneys, Bangalore.
This page is for an allottee whose builder's plan the National Company Law Tribunal has approved under section 31(1), which binds every creditor, or is about to. A dispute over the amount admitted is meant to be settled before the vote, as our guide on a claim admitted for less than you paid explains, and a finished flat is covered under possession during the CIRP.
| Your objection | Can you challenge it? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| The size of the cut in your refund | Not by itself | What each class receives is the committee's commercial decision |
| An extra payment or escalation before possession | Not by itself | The tribunals do not rewrite the terms offered to allottees |
| Your class voted for the plan and you did not | No, not on your own | Every member of the class is bound by its vote |
| Your class voted against and the plan passed | Arguably, if the class gets less than the statutory floor or loses its priority | Section 30(2)(ba) and regulation 38(1)(b) |
| Your verified claim was put in the late or unfiled category | Yes, if the plan's own terms treat verified claims differently | 2025 INSC 1086 |
| The company does not carry out the plan | Yes, by an application to the tribunal | Section 33(3) and (4), as amended in 2026 |
Four time limits follow the order.
Thirty days, then fifteen
Section 61(2) gives thirty days to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, which may allow fifteen more for sufficient cause, and not a day beyond that.
From the pronouncement
The Supreme Court has held that the thirty days start when the order is pronounced, so apply for a certified copy at once instead of waiting for a free one.
Three months to decide
Since 26 May 2026, section 61(6) requires the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of an appeal within three months from the date it receives it.
Forty-five days onward
Section 62 allows forty-five days from receiving the Appellate Tribunal's order to reach the Supreme Court, plus fifteen for sufficient cause, and no more.
Can I appeal against the approved resolution plan, and by when?
Yes, if you are aggrieved by the order and your complaint fits section 61(3), and whether you count as aggrieved turns first on how your class voted. Section 61(1) lets any person aggrieved by the tribunal's order appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, and section 32 confines an appeal against an approval to the five grounds in section 61(3). In practice an allottee relies on three: that the plan contravenes a law in force, that the resolution professional committed a material irregularity, or that the plan breaks a criterion the Board has specified. The ground about operational creditors protects suppliers, as our guide for an unpaid vendor explains.
In V Nagarajan v SKS Ispat and Power Ltd, decided on 22 October 2021, the Supreme Court held that the period under section 61(2) begins when the order is pronounced, that time taken to supply a certified copy is excluded only if you applied for one, and that nobody may wait for the free copy. Since 26 May 2026, section 61(6), inserted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, requires the Appellate Tribunal to decide within three months. A further appeal under section 62 lies only on a question of law, within forty-five days of receiving the Appellate Tribunal's order and fifteen more on sufficient cause, and in May 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed a buyers' association's appeals in the Earth Infrastructures litigation because they came 34 days late.
Deadline warning. Thirty days run from the day the approval order is pronounced, not from the day a copy reaches you, and no more than fifteen can be added. Apply for the certified copy that day.
Our class voted for the plan. Can I object to it on my own?
No. Section 25A(3A) requires the authorised representative to cast the vote of all the allottees he represents as decided by more than fifty percent of the voting share of those who voted. In Jaypee Kensington, decided on 24 March 2021, the Supreme Court held that once the class decides, to approve or to reject, everyone in it is bound. An outvoted buyer does not become a dissenting financial creditor, and once the class is deemed to have voted for the plan no member can be heard against it by objection or appeal, an estoppel the Court said the Code itself creates. Where the class assented, an individual homebuyer or an association cannot maintain a challenge and is not an aggrieved person. Our guide on Form F or Form CA explains how that vote is counted.
In the Canary Greens appeal, decided on 20 October 2023, twenty-five of about 1,500 buyers objected to a plan the committee approved with 96.93 percent, and the Appellate Tribunal held that a minority within the class has to sail with the majority. On 2 April 2024 the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere, and in May 2026 it again refused to let homebuyers who had not voted for a plan oppose it, because their representative had voted as the class majority directed. The Canary Greens objection preceded the tribunal's approval, so the same limits apply at that hearing.
Key takeaway. The class vote is your vote. If the class majority chose the plan, an appeal by you or an association meets the Jaypee Kensington bar before your grounds are read.
Is a cut in my refund, or a demand to pay more, unlawful by itself?
No, and here the applicant and the committee have the law on their side. In K. Sashidhar v Indian Overseas Bank, decided on 5 February 2019, the Supreme Court said the legislature had given no ground to challenge the commercial wisdom of the financial creditors before the tribunal, making it non-justiciable. In Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd v Satish Kumar Gupta, decided on 15 November 2019, it held that the ultimate discretion of what to pay each class or sub-class lies with the committee, though its decision must show that it took account of maximising value and balanced all stakeholders' interests, and that a successful applicant must know exactly what it has to pay so that it takes over on a fresh slate. Jaypee Kensington added that the tribunals cannot substitute any commercial term and can only send a deficient plan back to the committee.
Jaypee Kensington rejected RERA claims for interest or compensation that did not conform to the approved plan, holding the kind of arrangement made with homebuyers to be a commercial decision, and turned away objections that the new developer should be barred from charging buyers extra for an increase in super built-up area. In Canary Greens the plan counted the compensation the objectors had received under consumer commission orders against their principal, tied any further payment to resale of their flats, and made any who wanted a flat repay the refunds in six monthly instalments. The Appellate Tribunal held that a reduction in a creditor's claim does not make a plan unlawful and that a haircut clause cannot be read as a breach of section 30(2)(e), which bars a plan that contravenes any law in force.
The applicant's position deserves its due. It bids on the claims the process has listed, the committee weighs feasibility and viability under section 30(4), and Jaypee Kensington observed that without a binding class vote a plan involving many buyers might never come through, leaving only liquidation. Since 26 May 2026 the committee must also record reasons for approving.
What if our class voted against the plan and it still passed?
Then, on our reading of the Code, the class gets a floor and a place in the queue, not a veto. Approval needs sixty-six percent of the voting share under section 30(4), so only a class holding thirty-four percent or less can be outvoted, and Jaypee Kensington binds every member to a rejection as firmly as to an approval. We found no ruling applying the floor to an allottee class.
Where the committee first approves a plan after 26 May 2026, the new clause (ba) of section 30(2) requires payment to financial creditors who did not vote in favour of not less than the lower of two amounts: what they would receive in a liquidation under section 53, or if the plan money were distributed in the order section 53(1) sets. Its Explanation II keeps the earlier rule, which promised the liquidation amount, where the committee approved on or before that date. Regulation 38(1)(b) of the CIRP Regulations ranks that payment ahead of creditors who voted in favour, and since 26 May 2025 at least pro rata at each stage of a staged plan. Jaypee Kensington held, on the earlier clause, that such a creditor must be paid in money, not in land or shares. A plan below that floor contravenes the Code, a ground under section 61(3)(i).
The plan treats my verified claim as late or unfiled: is that a different case?
Yes, because the complaint is about how the plan has been applied to you, not about its terms. In 2025 INSC 1086, decided on 9 September 2025, buyers who had paid almost the whole price of a flat from Puma Realtors Private Limited resubmitted their claim on the resolution professional's invitation after the committee had approved the plan, and it was verified and printed in the list of creditors in full. The plan honoured admitted claims and offered possession to existing allottees, while a residuary clause gave half the principal back to allottees whose claims were never filed, never verified or never passed to the applicant. The tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal treated these buyers as belated and held them to the half refund.
The Supreme Court set both orders aside. A claim verified and incorporated in the published list acquires full legal recognition in the process, it held, publishing the list is a statutory duty and not a formality, and confining such buyers to the residuary clause misapplies the plan instead of preserving its binding effect. It directed the conveyance deed and possession within two months. The route was an application to the tribunal for directions to the resolution professional and the successful applicant, then the appeals.
Read the limits as closely as the result. The Court applied the plan's own categories and said it was not entertaining a fresh claim beyond the plan, so a buyer who genuinely never filed or was never verified is still held to the residuary clause.
Once the plan is final, what can I still do?
Work inside the plan, and pursue what survives it. Section 31(6), added in 2026, extinguishes any claim against the company and its assets under any other law for the period before approval, unless the plan provides otherwise, and bars proceedings on such claims. Its Explanation I keeps claims against a promoter or a person in management or control, a guarantor, and anyone jointly liable with the company, covered in our guide on a builder in insolvency.
For plans the committee approves after 26 May 2026, section 30(2)(d) calls for a committee of an insolvency professional, creditors' representatives and the applicant to implement and supervise the plan, and regulation 38(4) requires the committee to consider a monitoring committee that reports to the tribunal every quarter. In the Earth Infrastructures appeals, involving 4,229 allottees, the monitoring committee comprised only buyers, and its minutes recorded the applicant's undertaking to absorb the land authority's dues, which its plan had said would otherwise be shared among the allottees. On 5 May 2026 the Supreme Court restored both plans, which the Appellate Tribunal had set aside, and directed the applicants to clear the authority's principal dues on their own.
If the company contravenes the plan, section 33(3) lets anyone prejudicially affected apply to the tribunal for liquidation, and since 26 May 2026 the tribunal may instead reinstate the insolvency process and pass appropriate orders.
- Note the date the order was pronounced, apply for the certified copy that day, and diary the thirtieth day.
- Ask your authorised representative for your category's plan clause, the class voting result and the committee's recorded reasons. Regulation 16A(10) requires him to help the class evaluate plans and to see the documents it needs.
- Compare your category in the plan with your row in the list of creditors.
- If the class voted against, check what the plan pays it against the statutory floor.
- If you have a ground and the standing to raise it, file within thirty days, or, if the complaint is your category, apply to the tribunal with the list and the plan clause.
- Otherwise choose the option the plan gives your category, and pursue promoters or guarantors separately.
Where do these challenges go wrong, and what do they cost?
Most fail on standing or on time, not on the merits. A pattern we see after approval: the representative's voting emails went unanswered, and the buyer now wants to appeal alone against a plan the class approved. Others argue that the cut is unfair, which no tribunal will weigh, instead of pointing to a statutory floor or a misapplied clause, or wait for the free copy and file on the fortieth day. The file we ask for first is the plan clause for the buyer's category beside the buyer's row in the list of creditors, because the strongest complaints come from the gap between the two. An appeal is contested litigation whose cost and timetable depend on the hearings it takes, usually months rather than weeks, and these are indicative ranges only.
Common mistake. Treating a RERA order for interest as a debt that survives the plan. Unless the approved plan provides for it, section 31(6) extinguishes that claim against the company.
Four points decide whether a challenge has legs.
The class vote binds
Jaypee Kensington holds that once the allottees' class votes for the plan, no member or association can object to it or appeal against it.
A haircut is not illegality
In the Canary Greens appeal the Appellate Tribunal held that a clause requiring creditors to take a haircut cannot be read as a breach of section 30(2)(e).
A floor for dissent
On our reading, a class that voted against an approved plan is owed at least the statutory floor, now in section 30(2)(ba), ahead of creditors who voted in favour.
Verified means verified
The Supreme Court held in 2025 that a claim verified and printed in the list of creditors cannot be pushed into the plan's residuary clause for claims never filed or verified.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I appeal against the resolution plan if I voted against it but my class voted for it?
Not against the plan itself. Section 25A(3A) makes the representative cast one vote for the whole class as more than half the voting share of those voting decided, and Jaypee Kensington held that a member of a class that assented cannot be heard against the plan by objection or appeal. A complaint that the plan has been applied to your claim wrongly is a different matter.
How many days do I have to appeal against the NCLT order approving the plan?
Thirty days under section 61(2), counted from the day the order is pronounced, and the Appellate Tribunal may allow up to fifteen more for sufficient cause. It cannot go beyond that, so apply for the certified copy at once.
Is a fifty percent refund in a resolution plan legal?
A haircut is not unlawful by itself, because what each class receives is the committee's commercial decision. It can be questioned where the plan puts you in the wrong category, as when a verified claim is treated as unfiled, or, on our reading of the Code, where your class dissented and the plan pays it less than the statutory floor.
Can the new developer ask me to pay more than my agreement price?
If the approved plan provides for it, you are bound unless one of the narrow grounds applies. Jaypee Kensington treated the terms offered to homebuyers as a commercial decision and turned away objections to extra charges for an increase in super built-up area, so read the options the plan gives your category.
Can I still claim RERA delay interest after the plan is approved?
Not from the company, unless the plan provides for it. Section 31(6) extinguishes claims against the company under other laws for the period before approval, while its Explanation I keeps claims against promoters, people in control, guarantors and anyone jointly liable.
Can our homebuyers' association file the appeal for all of us?
Not against a plan the class approved, because Jaypee Kensington held that no association can maintain such a challenge. Where the class itself has a ground, regulation 16A(10)(j) lets the authorised representative act for it before the tribunals.
What if the resolution applicant does not deliver what the plan promises?
Raise it with the monitoring committee where there is one, since it reports to the tribunal, and if the company contravenes the plan, apply under section 33(3). Since 26 May 2026 the tribunal may reinstate the insolvency process on that application instead of ordering liquidation.
Can the NCLT change the plan's terms to protect homebuyers?
No. Jaypee Kensington held that the tribunal cannot modify the commercial terms of an approved plan and can only send it back to the committee, and since 26 May 2026 section 31(2) lets it give the committee notice to rectify defects before rejecting a plan.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice on your specific situation.
