# Mukesh Kakar vs. Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, Resolution Professional, Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Vivek Khanna & Ors.

> NCLT judgment dated 2026-10-05. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLT-01115. The Applicant, Mukesh Kakar, an allottee holding a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Spaze…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 5 Oct 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLT-01115
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-new-delhi/spaze-towers-pvt-ltd-bfnic

## Summary

### Background

The Applicant, Mukesh Kakar, an allottee holding a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), filed an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016, challenging a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The Applicant objected to the plan's differentiation between allottees with Builder Buyer Agreements (BBA) and those with MoUs, alleging that it created a 'class within a class' and resulted in an unfair and prejudicial distribution of settlement amounts, with MoU holders receiving a significantly lower recovery. The Applicant also raised concerns about the plan's feasibility, its 'liquidation-like' outcome, and a potential conflict of interest involving the Resolution Applicant.

## Facts

The Applicant, Mukesh Kakar, filed a claim of Rs. 52,59,583/- before the Resolution Professional on 09.12.2024, after receiving notice of the CIRP of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd.

The Applicant issued an Email dated 28.10.2025, objecting to the proposed Resolution Plan and requesting that the objection be conveyed to the CoC.

The Applicant received notice for the 14th Meeting of the CoC on 13.11.2025, along with the Agenda and the Proposed Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Siddharani Estate.

The Resolution Plan proposes a one-time settlement of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- for unit holders' claims, allocating Rs. 12,00,00,000/- to unit holders with Builder Buyer Agreements (BBA) and Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to unit holders with Memoranda of Understanding (MoU).

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether an individual homebuyer has locus standi to challenge a Resolution Plan once it has been …

**Ratio:** An individual homebuyer or an association of homebuyers cannot maintain a challenge to a

…

**Reasoning:** The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association

…

**Interpretation:** Section 25-A(3-A) of the Code implies that the Authorised Representative's

…

**Application:** The Applicant, as an individual homebuyer, forms part of the class of real

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** MAHENDRA KHANDELWA…; ATUL CHAT…
- **Appellants:** Mukesh…
- **Respondents:** Spaze Towers Pvt.…; Narendra Kumar…; +2 more
- **Other parties:** CoC…; Advait…; +4 more
- **Advocates:** Aravind Subramania…; Upamanyu…; +5 more

## Timeline

- **2024-12-09 — Claim Fi…**: The Applicant filed the Claim…
- **2025-10-28 — Objection Ema…**: The Applicant issued an Email objecting to the proposed Resolution Plan and requested it…

## 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-bfnic