9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 963 - AT - IBCApproval of Resolution Plan - viability and feasibility of the plan - principle argument of the Promoter is that the plan is not implementable within 9 months and neither it is viable and feasible - HELD THAT - Plan is not implementable within 9 months is not an issue which can be decided at the time of approval of the plan. The question that the plan cannot be implemented within 9 months is the question which can be raised after expiry of the period as contemplated in the plan. In so far as viability and feasibility it is the commercial wisdom of the CoC to take a decision on viability and feasibility of the plan. The CoC having approved the plan with 100% voting the CoC deemed to have adverted to the viability and feasibility of the Resolution Plan. The scope of interference in an order approving Resolution Plan is too limited for the Adjudicating Authority and this Appellate Tribunal which is well settled proposition - there are no good ground to interfere in the order approving the Resolution Plan at the instance of the Promoter. Appellant who is one of the homebuyers has to go with the majority decision of the homebuyers and cannot be allowed to question the approval of the plan which is law settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Ors. Vs. NBCC (India) Limited Ors. 2021 (3) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT . The Supreme Court having already held that single homebuyer cannot be allowed to question the approval of the Resolution Plan. He has to sail or sink with the majority decision and in the present case plan has approved with 100% voting share. Thus on behalf of one lone homebuyer challenge to the Resolution Plan cannot be maintained. Conclusion - The individual homebuyers cannot challenge the approval of a Resolution Plan when the CoC has endorsed it with a majority vote. Appeal dismissed.
The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority is implementable and viable.2. Whether the objections raised by the Promoter and Homebuyer regarding the conditional and contingent nature of the plan were adequately addressed.3. Whether the Adjudicating Authority properly considered the objections raised by the Promoter during the approval of the Resolution Plan.4. Whether the Homebuyer has the standing to challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan based on the decision of the Committee of Creditors.Issue-wise detailed analysis:The Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions made by the Promoter and Homebuyer challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Promoter contended that the plan was not implementable within the specified timeline of 9 months and lacked viability and feasibility. The Homebuyer raised similar concerns regarding the conditional and contingent nature of the plan, citing Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016.The Tribunal examined the objections raised during the initial proceedings and the subsequent approval of the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority had initially indicated that the objections raised by the Promoter would be considered during the approval process. However, in the final order approving the plan, the Authority stated that the objections had been adequately addressed in the plan.Regarding the implementability and viability of the plan, the Tribunal emphasized that the Commercial Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved the plan with 100% voting share, indicating their assessment of the plan's feasibility. The Tribunal cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited' Vs. 'Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 531" to support the limited scope of interference in the approval of Resolution Plans.In the case of the Homebuyer's appeal, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in "Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Ors. Vs. NBCC (India) Limited & Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 401," which established that individual homebuyers cannot challenge the approval of a Resolution Plan when the CoC has endorsed it with a majority vote. As the plan had been approved unanimously, the Tribunal concluded that the lone Homebuyer's challenge was not maintainable.Significant holdings:The Tribunal dismissed all appeals challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan, citing the CoC's unanimous decision as a key factor in upholding the plan's validity. The Tribunal also condoned the delays in filing and refiling the appeals based on sufficient cause shown by the Appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan, emphasizing the CoC's authority in determining the plan's viability and feasibility. Individual objections were deemed adequately addressed, and challenges from minority stakeholders were not deemed maintainable in light of the majority decision.
|
