2024 (1) TMI 90 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Refund of home buyers who had obtained a decree from the RERA - to be treated as separate class or not - HELD THAT - On perusal of the very fact that the Appellants have obtained a decree from UP RERA and the issue decided in the case of Vishal Chelani Ors. 2023 (10) TMI 949 - SUPREME COURT was whether they form a separate class has been decided that they are also to be treated as such alongwith other home buyers/financial creditors for the purpose of resolution plan and the argument raised by the Respondent that a provision has already been made in the resolution plan for the purpose of refund in Clause (B3)(c), there are no error in the impugned order and thus the present appeal is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for seeking refund directed against Adjudicating Authority's order.
2. Treatment of appellants as home buyers or financial creditors.
3. Interpretation of resolution plan clauses regarding refund.
4. Challenge to impugned order based on previous legal judgments.

Comprehensive details of the judgment for each issue involved:

1. The appeal was filed against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 11.10.2022, regarding an application seeking a refund for the appellants and similarly placed decree holders. The appellants had booked units in a project by a Corporate Debtor and approached UP RERA for refunds, leading to recovery certificates being issued for specified amounts for each appellant.

2. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application, stating that the appellants were treated as Real Estate Allottees by the Resolution Professional and had no grounds for dissent as they were represented by an authorized representative who voted in favor of the plan. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment regarding homebuyers' assent to resolution plans.

3. The Counsel for the Appellants argued that the appellants should be treated as financial creditors based on a Supreme Court decision and highlighted a clause in the resolution plan regarding cancellation and refund procedures, asserting the appellants' entitlement to the decretal amount.

4. The Respondent's Counsel contended that the resolution plan had been approved, the appellants had not challenged it, and the application had become moot. He argued that the resolution plan already provided for refunds and cited the same Supreme Court judgment to support treating the appellants equally with other home buyers/financial creditors.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellants, having obtained a decree from UP RERA, were to be treated as home buyers/financial creditors per previous legal precedent. The existence of a refund provision in the resolution plan and the lack of error in the impugned order led to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.