9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 267 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyDoctrine of promissory estoppel - Resolution Plan, which is submitted by Resolution Applicant and approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom - RP has admitted its claim of 10 flats - HELD THAT - Acceptance or admission of the claim of a Financial Creditor including homebuyers is one aspect of the scheme under the IBC. Subsequent steps in the IBC including the preparation of Resolution Plan are based on the list of creditors, admitted claims of the creditors etc. as per the scheme of the IBC, but the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed against the Resolution Applicant, who submits Resolution Plan on the basis of relying on the Information Memorandum, the list of creditors and other aspect of the matter. The Resolution Applicant has not extended any promise to the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor that the claim submitted by Financial Creditor or any other creditor shall be accepted in toto. The mandatory contents of the Resolution Plan are laid down in the CIRP Regulations, 2016. If a Resolution Plan is compliant with the provision of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the IBC and the provisions of the Regulations, 2016, the Plan cannot be faulted on the ground of the promissory estoppel, which the Appellant is pressing against the Resolution Professional, who has admitted the claim. The submission of the Appellant based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed into service in reference to the Resolution Plan, which has been submitted by a Resolution Applicant and approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the objections filed by the Appellant to the Resolution Plan. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Objection to the Resolution Plan by the Appellant. 2. Classification of Homebuyers as affected and unaffected. 3. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Summary: 1. Objection to the Resolution Plan by the Appellant: The Appellant objected to the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Kabra Estate and Investment Consultant, which was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Plan discriminated against them by treating their claim differently from other homebuyers due to the lack of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from LIC Housing Finance Limited (LICHFL). The Adjudicating Authority rejected the objection, stating that the Resolution Plan had been approved by the homebuyers as a class, and individual objections could not be entertained. This decision was based on the Supreme Court judgment in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments vs. NBCC (India) Limited and others, (2022) 1 SCC 401. 2. Classification of Homebuyers as affected and unaffected: The Resolution Plan categorized homebuyers into two groups: affected and unaffected. Affected homebuyers were those who did not obtain NOC from LICHFL, while unaffected homebuyers had obtained the NOC. The Appellant contended that this classification was arbitrary and illegal. However, the Tribunal upheld the classification, referencing a similar issue addressed in the judgment of Sabari Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sivana Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., where the classification was deemed justified and not in violation of Section 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 3. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel: The Appellant argued that the principle of promissory estoppel should apply, as the Resolution Professional (RP) had initially admitted their claim for 10 flats. They cited Supreme Court judgments in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Manuelsons Hotels (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala to support their argument. However, the Tribunal concluded that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be applied to a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its commercial wisdom. The Tribunal reasoned that the Resolution Applicant had not made any promises to the creditors and that the acceptance of claims by the RP did not bind the Resolution Applicant. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, finding no merit in the objections raised by the Appellant. The classification of homebuyers was upheld, and the application of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable to the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the objections to the Resolution Plan was affirmed.
|
