66% Creditor Approval Mandatory For Resolution Plans | NCLAT

Case Details: Saariga Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar, RP, Richa Industries Ltd. - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 367 (NCLAT- New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Barun Mitra, Technical Member
• Aalok Jagga, Karan Malhotra, Nahush Jain, APS Madaan & Anant Shankar Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellant.
•  Nitin Kant Setia, Paras Mithal, Gaurav Goel, Pulkit Sachdeva, Gaurav Raj, Abhishek Anand, Karan Kohli, Ms Palak Kalra, Akshit Awasthi, Rajat Gupta, Ms Vanshika Dhoot, V.K. Sachdeva, Parakhar Mithal & Ms Ridhima, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant, a financial creditor, submitted a resolution plan for the corporate debtor; however, as a result of e-voting, the appellant’s plan received 52.02% votes in favour of the plan, 0.08% against the plan and 47.90% abstained from voting.

The Resolution plan was rejected on the ground that it required vote of 66% which had not been received. The appellant filed an application against the rejection of the resolution plan, alleging the wrong calculation of the CoC voting.

The Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order rejected the application, holding that the resolution plan of the appellant did not receive 66% votes. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

It was noted that Section 30(4) of the IBC is a provision requiring special majority for passing a special resolution and when the statute provides for passing any resolution by special majority that has its purpose and object, requirement of special majority for passing a resolution plan and that too 66% of voting share of financial creditors, has to be given its meaning and purpose.

NCLAT Held

The NCLAT held that the requirement of passing a resolution by 66% of the vote of financial creditors has to be fulfilled in all circumstances, and 66% cannot be allowed to vary on the ground of the presence or absence of a particular financial creditor in the meeting of the CoC. Thus, there was no error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority directing the liquidation of the corporate debtor.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order passed by NCLT, chandigarh in CA No.786 of 2019
• IA No.483(CH)2024, dated 11-6-2025 (para 31) affirmed

List of Cases Referred To

• K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank [2019] 102 taxmann.com 139/152 SCL 312 (SC) (para 5),
• Tata Steel Limited v. Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 103/152 SCL 575 (NCL-AT) (para 5) and
• IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Anuj Jain, RP, JP Infratech Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 469/155 SCL 199 (NCL-AT) (para 23).