2020 (9) TMI 1111 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Maintainability of Objections - applicant is representing 1500 home buyers of real estate projects, but whereas RP has categorically mentioned that only 448 home buyers voted against the plan - HELD THAT - This objector has no locus to raise such objections without following the procedure, hence these objections have been rejected without going into the merits of the objections. As to the request made by the Counsel, we express our helplessness to consider the plea of the counsel because whenever any proceedings is initiated or any reply is filed, it shall be filed in accordance with the Law. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also categorically mentioned giving liberty to Wishtown Home Buyers Welfare Society that the said entity is at liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with the law - The Counsel Mr. Lahot has stated that he would supply the list of the home buyers. However, list has not even been mentioned in these objections, the question of granting any permission to provide list after passing this order will not arise. Objections rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misrepresentation of objector as Respondent in the application CA5/2020.
2. Lack of proper authorization and representation of objector society.
3. Discrepancies in the objections filed by the objector.
4. Reference to orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
5. Request to consider objections despite technicalities and lack of proper procedure.

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlighted the issue of misrepresentation where the objector was styled as a Respondent in CA5/2020 without following the necessary procedure of filing an impleadment application. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correct representation in legal proceedings to maintain procedural integrity.

2. Another crucial issue raised was the lack of proper authorization and representation of the objector society, Wishtown Home Buyers Welfare Society, comprising over 1500 home buyers. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the authorization process and highlighted the necessity for clear and valid authorization when raising objections before the Court.

3. The judgment pointed out discrepancies in the objections filed by the objector society, specifically regarding the number of home buyers represented and the voting pattern against the plan. The Tribunal emphasized the need for accurate and consistent information in legal submissions to ensure transparency and credibility.

4. The Counsel representing the objector referred to orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, seeking permission to argue on behalf of the society despite technicalities in the objections. The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's orders but reiterated the importance of following proper legal procedures in presenting grievances before the Court.

5. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the request to consider objections despite procedural shortcomings and technicalities. The judgment emphasized the significance of adhering to legal requirements and dismissed the objections due to lack of proper authorization and misrepresentation, highlighting the importance of maintaining procedural correctness in legal proceedings.