9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ha Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Rishabh Jain, Ms. Ankita Bajpai, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Gaurav Katiyar (R1 RP) Mr. Abir Roy, Mr. Ishaan Chakrabarti, Advocates for R2 Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Pandey, Ms. Disha Gupta, Mr. Kauser Husain, Mr. Aditya Dhupar, Advocates for R2. Mr. Shobhit Srivastava, Mr. Sahil Sethi (Caveator, R3-23) Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate R-15 Mr. Satish Rai, Advocate for R22 Mr. Vijay Saxena, Advocate for R-24 JUDGMENT DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. These appeals are filed under Section 61 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (in short 'Code') against the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not in compliance of the provisions of the Code and the 'CIRP Regulations 4th Amendment 2020' which came into force on 07.08.2020. 4. The Adjudicating Authority has also seen the implication of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment rendered in the case of Maharashtra Seamless limited. Vs. Padambhan Venkatesh as stated below: "i. the Creditors in Maharashtra Seamless Ltd's case supra was normal Financial Creditor i.e. Indian Bank and no Home Buyers were involved whereas the Financial Creditors is present petition are home Buyers, a category in class. ii. in the said case, basic issue arose before Hon'ble Supreme Court stemmed out of the fact that in the said matter, the Successful Resolution Applicant was asked to pay an additional amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. interest on delay payment); vi. Did not include quantum of Rs. 5.47 lakhs i.e. payment proposed to the operational creditors. 7. The Appellant has also submitted that the notification purportedly dated 07.08.2020 came into existence only on 08.08.2020 at 10:42 PM whereas CoC meeting e-voting commenced on 08.08.2020 at 3:00PM. As far as the issue of farmers are concerned, these are not contractual obligations. 8. The Appellant has also stated that the Resolution Plan had been approved with 62.9% voting share which would be considered as 100% as per Section 25A (3A) of the Code in favour of the 'Resolution Plan'. They have also raised the issue that the decision of the CoC in respect of commercial issues cannot be challenged by the Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Applicant is acquiring the Corporate Debtor is less than 1/5th of the Liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor. 11. We have carefully gone through the submissions made by the Appellants and concerned Respondents. There is a difference of CoC where they are 'Banks' and 'Institutional lenders 'as members, while the CoC in the Homebuyers are not so expert in finance and related valuations. Hence, CoC in case of the commercial organisations will have a different perspective and expertise while in case of Real Estate projects where the CoC are totally comprising of homebuyers may not have the same expertise and perspective. Although, in case of Homebuyers provisions exists for Authorised Representatives but even he cannot be equated with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
