Resolution Plan Approved Under Section 31 IBC To Get Expeditious Implementation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, authorities dealing with development permissions required to implement the plan must take an expeditious and reasoned decision.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) to consider and decide the proposal for renewal of the development licence and sanction of the revised building plan for ‘Sushant Aquapolis’, a Group Housing project promoted by M/s Ansal Urban Condominium Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor (CD).

Why did the Supreme Court intervene in the Sushant Aquapolis project?

The resolution plan for the project had already been approved under Section 31 of the IBC. However, its implementation was stalled as the GDA had not renewed the development licence or sanctioned the revised building plan.

The Supreme Court emphasised that when a public authority is dealing with a development proposal that affects the implementation of an approved resolution plan, it must consider the relevant material, carry out the necessary inspection and pass an appropriate reasoned decision without avoidable delay.

The Bench directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and the GDA to inspect the site, consider the proposal and place an appropriate decision before the Court.

Referring to the Uttar Pradesh Model Building Construction and Development Bye-laws, 2025, Court pointed out that sanction of a building or revised building plan remains subject to submission of the prescribed online application and compliance with the applicable bye-laws. At the same time, the competent authority must keep the interests of home buyers in view.

The GDA stated that it would sanction the building plan once an online application was submitted in accordance with the applicable bye-laws, while keeping in view the interests of the home buyers.

What did the Supreme Court say about access to the project?

Court also clarified that where access to a development plot is necessary for implementing a resolution plan, the successful resolution applicant may be directed to develop the access pathway without acquiring or asserting title over it.

“Access may be confined to a point determined by the competent authority, must not be exclusive, and must also remain available to adjoining property holders,” the Bench said.

In the present case, the appellant, One City Infrastructure Private Limited, the successful resolution applicant, undertook to reconstruct the road along the three boundaries of the GH-1 plot. It was also granted access at one point, to be decided by the GDA.

The appellant had approached the Supreme Court as the resolution plan was facing multiple difficulties. One of these was the delay by the GDA in renewing the development licence and sanctioning the revised building plan, which had stalled implementation of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the IBC.

The Bench disposed of the civil appeal after issuing the necessary directions. It also granted liberty to either party to approach the Supreme Court and seek restoration of the appeal if any impediment arose with respect to the subject matter of the order.

“We make it clear that this order is passed in the presence of the intervenors who are the majority of the homeowners/purchasers, whose application alone is allowed,” the Bench said.

Case Title: One City Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ors

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: August 31, 2026