9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 457 - AT - IBCEntitlement of Appellants as homebuyers to voting rights in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) - Dismissal of application on the grounds that the Appellants held only a minuscule voting share - Appellants contended that their claims were not considered despite having valid Builder Buyer Agreements allotment letters and receipts - HELD THAT - The CoC had already approved the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant and based on which the Respondent No. 1 moved an IA bearing CA No. 485/ND.2019 under Section 30(6) r/w Section 31(1) of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan which has already been approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12.09.2022. It is also pertinent to mention that the Respondent No. 1 submitted the Resolution Plan Order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority stands reaffirmed by this Appellate Tribunal in Merina Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Anand Sonbhadra Resolution Professional for Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Ors. 2024 (10) TMI 1466 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI and Shubhkamna City Welfare Association Anr. v. Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Through Resolution Professional Anr. 2024 (5) TMI 14 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI . In these judgments this Appellate Tribunal had already upheld the commercial wisdom of the CoC declining to interfere with the approved Resolution Plan. Conclusion - Since the Resolution Plan has already stand approved long time back in the year of 2022 which was further confirmed by this Appellate tribunal again in the year 2022 we do not fine any merit in the present appeal. Since the Resolution Plan already stand approved not only by the Adjudicating Authority but also confirmed by this Appellate Tribunal the present appeal of the Appellants has become infructuous and therefore stand rejected.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Entitlement to Voting Rights and Claim Rejection Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and its regulations, particularly concerning the submission and verification of claims by creditors, were central to this issue. The Essar Steel India Limited case was cited to emphasize that claims cannot be entertained after a Resolution Plan is approved. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Appellants held a negligible voting share of approximately 1% and that their claims were not reflected in the Corporate Debtor's books. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellants failed to provide adequate proof of their claims. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Appellants' claims were based on cash receipts not reflected in the Corporate Debtor's cash register. The Resolution Professional had requested further documentation, which the Appellants failed to provide. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the Essar Steel case, concluding that the Appellants' claims could not be entertained after the Resolution Plan's approval. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' arguments, noting that the Resolution Professional had adhered to the legal framework and that the Appellants had not substantiated their claims. Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the Appellants' claims and their exclusion from the CoC. Project-wise Resolution Plan Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The precedent set in Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills-77, Gurgaon vs. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. was considered, which mandates project-wise CIRP for real estate companies. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, which declined to interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan with a substantial majority, and the Appellants' negligible voting share did not impact the outcome. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the cited precedent but found no merit in the Appellants' arguments, given the overwhelming approval of the Resolution Plan. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' argument for a project-wise resolution, noting the CoC's commercial wisdom and the lack of merit in the appeal. Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan and dismissed the appeal. Rejection of Claims Due to Absence of Cash Register Entries Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the requirements for claim verification under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the CIRP Regulations. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the absence of entries in the cash register, combined with the lack of additional documentation, justified the rejection of the Appellants' claims. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional had conducted a thorough examination and reasonably concluded that the Appellants' claims were unsupported. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the relevant legal provisions, concluding that the rejection of the claims was justified. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' arguments, emphasizing the need for substantiated claims. Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the Appellants' claims. Appeal Against Rejection of Claims and Approval of Resolution Plan Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the principles established in Essar Steel and other relevant cases regarding the finality of approved Resolution Plans. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Resolution Plan had been approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, and reaffirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Appellants' claims were not substantiated, and the Resolution Plan was approved with a significant majority. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the Essar Steel case, concluding that the appeal lacked merit. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' arguments, emphasizing the finality of the approved Resolution Plan. Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal upheld the principles established in the Essar Steel case, emphasizing the finality of approved Resolution Plans and the need for substantiated claims. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants' claims were not substantiated and that their negligible voting share did not impact the Resolution Plan's approval. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with no costs awarded.
|
