9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 14 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCompetence of maintaining the appeal by the present appellants - Seeking approval of the resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicants - homebuyers as a class assented to the plans - HELD THAT - As a matter of fact, the tripartite agreement was challenged as void but the said application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority against which the RP filed the appeal before this Tribunal which was dismissed on 05.01.2022 holding that the RP had no locus to file the application. It was further held that the transfer of portion of plot by sub-lease was effected on 27.09.2016 whereas CIRP was initiated after more than two years i.e on 26.11.2018. It was further held that the RP has no ground to doubt the transaction which is more than two years prior to commencement of CIRP. The association did not raise any plea of fraud in transferring the plot by sub-lease and the RP failed to make out a case that the sub-lease was executed for depriving the rights of homebuyers. Also in the case of Piya Puri 2022 (8) TMI 1111 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI the same view has been taken while discussing Section 25A of the Code and Regulation 16-A(9) of the Regulations. It has been held that where the majority (more than 50%) have voted in favour of the resolution plan approving the same, the dissenting homebuyers who are in minority have to go alongwith the views of the majority and are not entitled to prefer the appeal. In view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court coupled with the fact that the homebuyers as a class through authorised representative have voted to the extent 87.60% approving the resolution plan, the other homebuyers who are in minority have to follow the decision of the majority and cannot challenge the resolution plan in appeal as they do not fall within the definition of aggrieved person and thus, the appeal at their instance is not maintainable. There is a merit in the objection raised by the Respondent and hence, the appeal at the instance of the present appellants is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal by the appellants. 2. Approval of the resolution plan by the CoC. 3. Objections raised by dissenting homebuyers and other creditors. 4. Competence of the appellants to challenge the resolution plan. Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Appeal: The appeal was filed u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Shubhkamna City Welfare Association and Subhkamna City Welfare Association against the order dated 12.09.2022 by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi). The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the appellants do not fall within the category of 'aggrieved person' as per Section 61 of the Code. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. Vs. NBCC (India) Limited & Ors. (2022) and other related cases, concluding that dissatisfied homebuyers and associations cannot challenge the resolution plan if the majority of their class has approved it. The appeal was dismissed on this ground. 2. Approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC: The resolution plan submitted by Surender Kumar Singhal and Sunil Kumar Agarwal was approved by the CoC with an affirmative voting percentage of 87.60%. The commercial wisdom of the CoC was given paramount status without judicial intervention, as supported by the Supreme Court's decision in K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. (2019). 3. Objections Raised by Dissenting Homebuyers and Other Creditors: Four sets of objections were raised against the approval of the resolution plan. The first set by dissenting homebuyers was dismissed based on the principle that individual homebuyers or associations cannot maintain any challenge to the resolution plan if the homebuyers as a class have assented to it. The second set by M/s Merina Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., the third by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida), and the fourth by GNIDA were also considered. The Tribunal upheld the CoC's decision, emphasizing the commercial wisdom of the CoC. 4. Competence of the Appellants to Challenge the Resolution Plan: The Tribunal found that the appellants did not provide evidence of the number of members in their association or any list of members with the appeal. The Tribunal reiterated that the minority homebuyers must follow the majority within their class and cannot challenge the resolution plan. The Tribunal referenced Section 25-A of the Code and Regulation 16-A(9) of the Regulations, which mandate that the views of individual homebuyers are subsumed in the majority decision expressed through their Authorised Representative. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as the appellants did not qualify as 'aggrieved persons' and the objections raised did not hold merit against the approved resolution plan. The Tribunal upheld the CoC's decision, emphasizing the importance of the commercial wisdom of the CoC and the binding nature of the majority decision within a class of creditors.
|
