# Dr. Sudip Saran vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, Resolution Professional & Anr.

> NCLT judgment dated 2026-10-05. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLT-01122. Dr. Sudip Saran, a financial creditor and allottee of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 5 Oct 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLT-01122
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-new-delhi/spaze-towers-pvt-ltd-3dr3a

## Summary

### Background

Dr. Sudip Saran, a financial creditor and allottee of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), filed an application seeking various reliefs including the removal of the Resolution Professional (RP) and Authorised Representative (AR), initiation of disciplinary proceedings, issuance of a fresh Form G, invitation of fresh Resolution Plans, and a comprehensive transactional/forensic audit. The applicant alleged non-compliance with CIRP regulations, non-admission of the full claim (including interest), deprivation of participation in CoC meetings, and non-receipt of crucial documents during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

## Facts

The Applicant, Dr. Sudip Saran, booked Service Apartment Unit No. 1012A in the project "Spaze Apotel / Boulevard-II" of the Corporate Debtor for Rs.83,36,815/-.

A Builder Buyer's Agreement (BBA) was executed on 15.04.2014, stipulating possession within 60 months, i.e., by April 2019.

The Applicant made payments totaling Rs.94,38,457/- by 17.09.2020, but possession was not delivered despite an email from the Corporate Debtor on 24.08.2020 assuring possession within 75 days.

The Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP on 21.10.2024, and a Public Announcement was made on 24.10.2024.

The Applicant submitted a claim in Form CA on 06.11.2024 for Rs.94,38,457/- plus 18% p.a. interest, amounting to Rs.2,43,37,913/-.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the actions undertaken during the CIRP, including the conduct of CoC meetings and …

**Ratio:** The CIRP is a structured statutory process, and an individual creditor cannot bypass

…

**Reasoning:** The Applicant's claim for non-receipt of documents was denied by respondents who stated

…

**Interpretation:** The Code and Regulations define specific roles and procedures for CIRP, CoC

…

**Application:** The NCLT found no fundamental illegality in the CIRP process or misconduct by

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** MAHENDRA KHANDELWA…; ATUL CHAT…
- **Appellants:** SUDIP S…
- **Respondents:** Spaze Towers Pvt.…; Narendra Kumar…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Committee of…; Vivek Khanna &…
- **Advocates:** Nakul M…; PCS Lovkesh…; +6 more

## Timeline

- **2014-04-15 — Builder Buyer's…**: The Applicant entered into a Builder…
- **2019-04-01 — Expected Posses…**: Possession of the unit was to be handed…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(5) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-new-delhi/spaze-towers-pvt-ltd-3dr3a