9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 538 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking approval of Resolution Plan - consent of aggrieved homebuyers received or not - Section 30(6) and Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and read with Regulation 39 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT - It is seen from record that objectors are 20 homebuyers. The plan is approved with 100% voting share of CoC which comprises of two banks HDFC bank, Axis bank and also association of home buyers, comprising of approximately by 343 homebuyers. They have after deliberation passed resolution approving plan. In present case 37.69% homebuyers have consented in favour. It is only 20 No. of homebuyers who have raised objections to approval of plan. Moreover, the apex court has held that commercial wisdom of CoC need not be interfered by adjudicating authority and in present case it is approved by 100% voting share of CoC. The provisions of section 31 read with regulations are complied. The financial creditors have been provided with 80.44% of amount claimed and operational creditor are paid 0.295% of claim wherein if the company goes in liquidation the same values will deplete substantially. Thus, the resolution plan needs to be approved. The resolution plan, as approved by the CoC, is in accordance with the sub-section 2 of Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Code and as the Resolution Applicant is not disqualified under Section 29A of the Code; we hereby approve the Resolution Plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Code - It is hereby declared that the Resolution Plan is binding on the corporate debtor, members, employees of the corporate debtor, creditors of the corporate debtor and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan - moratorium order passed by this bench under Section 14 of the Code shall cease to have effect. Resolution Plan approved - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Approval of the Resolution Plan under Sections 30(6) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. 2. Objections raised by homebuyers regarding the Resolution Plan. 3. Compliance with statutory requirements under the IBC and related regulations. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Approval of the Resolution Plan: The application was filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) seeking approval of the Resolution Plan under Sections 30(6) and 31 of the IBC, 2016. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a 100% voting share during the twelfth CoC meeting. The RP conducted the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as per the regulations and performed various tasks as per the provisions of the Code. The fair value of the corporate debtor was ?262.77 Crores, and the liquidation value was ?135.28 Crores. The Resolution Plan, submitted by a consortium comprising Trident Infrahomes Private Limited and Romano Infrastructure Private Limited, was approved by the CoC and met the requirements of Section 31 of the Code and Regulation 39 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016. 2. Objections Raised by Homebuyers: Twenty homebuyers filed objections against the Resolution Plan, arguing various illegalities and non-compliances. They claimed that the RP failed to conduct a transparent and fair resolution process. Specific objections included: - Faulty Information Manual: The IM was allegedly defective, failing to factor in refunds made to some homebuyers and the status of joint ventures. - Lack of Forensic Audit: The RP failed to complete a forensic audit despite repeated reminders. - Preferential Treatment: The plan allegedly favored financial creditors (banks) over homebuyers. - Differential Treatment: The plan was discriminatory towards flat buyers compared to plot owners. - Intimidation and Misleading: Homebuyers were allegedly misled and intimidated into voting in favor of the plan. Despite these objections, the CoC, comprising HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, and an association of homebuyers, approved the plan with a 100% voting share. The Tribunal noted that the commercial wisdom of the CoC should not be interfered with by the adjudicating authority, and the plan offered a higher value than liquidation. 3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements: The Tribunal examined the compliance of the Resolution Plan with the statutory requirements set out in the IBC, 2016, and related regulations. The Resolution Plan complied with Section 30(1), Section 30(2)(a), Regulation 38(1A), Section 30(2)(b), Regulation 38(2)(c), Section 30(2)(c), Section 30(2)(d), Section 30(2)(e), and Section 30(4) of the IBC, 2016. The plan provided for the payment of insolvency process costs, treatment of operational creditors, and supervision of plan implementation. The plan did not contravene any provisions of law and was approved by the CoC with 100% voting share. Conclusion: The Tribunal approved the Resolution Plan under Section 31(1) of the IBC, 2016, declaring it binding on the corporate debtor, its members, employees, creditors, and other stakeholders. The moratorium order passed under Section 14 of the Code ceased to have effect. The RP was directed to forward all records relating to the CIRP process and the resolution plan to the IBBI. The approved Resolution Plan became effective from the date of the order. IA No. 3542/2020 was rejected, and IA No. 1303/2020 was admitted and disposed of accordingly.
|
