Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1257 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIRejection of approved Resolution Plan - defects in the lease deed that would hamper the execution of the resolution plan, if approved - it is also alleged that Homebuyers/allottees, who are financial creditors in class did not seek the views of the allottees prior to CoC meeting as is required in Section 25A, but the voting by allottees took place alongside the e-voting on the resolution plan in CoC - HELD THAT:- As the provision under sub-section 3 of section 25A clearly lays down, the Authorized Representative shall always act with the 'prior instructions' of the financial creditors he represents. Furthermore, sub-section 4 of section 25A provides that the Authorized Representative shall file with the Committee of Creditors any instructions received from Financial Creditors to ensure that appropriate instructions of the financial creditors he represents is correctly recorded by the Resolution Professional. The import of sub-sections 3 and 4 of section 25A is very clear that the views of financial creditors in class should be sought in an appropriate manner by the Authorized Representative prior to the CoC Meeting - the use of word "prior' also implies that the financial creditors in class shall have sufficient time to consider collectively the issue/s before them and after voting which is recorded by the Authorized Representative, the result is conveyed to the Committee of Creditors. The homebuyers/allottees could not have had access to either the registered office of the corporate debtor or the principal place of business at Faridabad since both were closed. Moreover, without the meeting/getting together by the homebuyers/allottees, it was not easy for them to discuss and convey their views to the Authorized Representative who would then represent their views in the CoC - It is also felt that the providing 10% of the claimed amounts to homebuyers/allottees who could not file their claims in the circumstances of this case is an unfair and inadequate treatment of the financial creditors. A perusal of the resolution plan shows that the MoU/agreement holders who could not file their claim within the prescribed time have been labeled as 'non-claimants' whereas those that have filed their claims in time have been labeled as 'claimants'. It is also clear that both these categories of financial creditors in class (homebuyers/allottees) have been treated differently in that the claimants have been offered possession of the allotted premises, whereas non-claimants have been given only 10% of their total amount deposited, that too after due verification and within one month of the approval of the resolution plan. It is directed that the process be started afresh with claims of homebuyers/allottees accepted by the Resolution Professional by giving them realistic time limit for submission of claims, in keeping with the order of the Adjudicating Authority, leading to a revised information memorandum, which should then be used for inviting Expressions of Interest. In the CIRP, the views of the financial creditors in class should be elicited by the Authorized Representative prior to CoC meetings in letter and spirit of section 25A of IBC. Thereafter, the CoC shall consider the resolution plans so received in accordance with the provisions laid down in law. For this entire exercise, we allow a period of 90 days to the CoC from the date of this order to complete the entire exercise. Appeal disposed off.
|