9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the resolution passed by the CoC as contemplated under Section 25A(3A) of the Code. No further enquiry is required, therefore we arrive to a conclusion that the resolution passed by the CoC is with more than 66% for approval of the replacement of IRP with RP, hence this application is hereby allowed for replacement of Mr. Dilip Kumar Niranjan (IRP) with Mr. Ganga Ram Agarwal as RP. Accordingly, this application is hereby allowed by appointing Mr. Ganga Ram Agarwal as RP. Appointment of RP - Insolvency professional approved as resolution professional by the CoC to replace IRP - HELD THAT:- There is no application by the IRP stating that the AR has given incorrect information to the CoC as to voting of home-buyers for approval of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application for urgent hearing in I.A. No. 2504 of 2019 has been heard through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit. 2. It is an application filed for urgent hearing in I.A. No. 2504 of 2019 sought for the correction of voting results wrongly computed by the IRP in violation of Section 25A(3A) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (for brevity 'the Code') and for appointmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative, the vote cast by the Authorized Representative on behalf of the Respective class is to be treated as 100% voting on behalf of Respective class of financial creditors who voted for more than 50% in favour of the approval. The applicant counsel has further stated that the removal of IRP is complete discretion of the CoC and the same required no reason or justification to be recorded in this regard. The counsel has also placed the ratio decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 2019, decided on 09.08.2019) to say that whenever a class of creditors voted for more than 50% then such voting shall be treated as 100% on behalf of the Respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 100% on behalf of the Homebuyers to the resolution passed by the CoC as contemplated under Section 25A(3A) of the Code which is as follows: Section 25A(3A) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-section (3), the authorised representative under sub-section (6A) of section 21 shall cast his vote on behalf of all the financial creditors he represents in accordance with the decision taken by a vote of more than fifty per cent, of the voting share of the financial creditors he represents, who have cast their vote. 8. In support of the aforesaid proposition, the applicant has also relied upon Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) in para No. 55 which is as follows: ........... Given the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been given for appointment of the RP, the voting made by the AR on behalf cannot be construed as 72 % on behalf of the home buyers. 2. Since, the person filed for approval of proposal of appointment of RP being a person indulged in embezzlement of funds of the respective home-buyers association, the application filed by the said person for approval of appointment of IRP shall not be considered. 3. For the person proposed to be appointed as RP being the partner of M/s. AAA Associate, a firm dealing with insolvency and Bankruptcy and the owner of the M/s. AAA Associate owns a flat in PAL Garden Sector 89, Faridabad Project, therefore he shall not be appointed as RP. 11. As against these points, the counsel appearing on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buyers voted for approval for appointment of the RP, this approval shall be construed as 100 %, on this understanding, since the proposal for appointment of RP has been approved with more than 50 per cent, the voting done by the home buyers shall be considered as 100 % voting, therefore, there is no merit in saying requisite approval is not present for proposal of appointment of RP by the CoC. 15. Since these home buyers who are said to have made their claims after the CoC meeting for approval of resolution for appointment of the RP, subsequent claimants making an allegation against past action cannot invalidate the decisions taken by the CoC. Moreover, it appears all these advocates file vakalatnamas on behalf of associations without ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
