9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the discharge of their responsibilities and no cause of action survives on this count. Once the CoC has approved the resolution plan by requisite majority and the same is in consonance with applicable provisions of law the same cannot be a subject matter of judicial review and modification - the plea raised by the Appellants that the Adjudicating Authority had committed an error in rejecting their IA without having considered the main petition seeking approval of the resolution plan, is not impressing. Merely because there is a reduction in the claim of any creditor does not make the resolution plan fall foul of law. We quite agree with the Adjudicating Authority that resolution plan providing a lesser amount than admitted does not make it illegal . Any clause in the resolution plan which requires creditors to take a hair-cut cannot be construed as being violative of Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC. There is nothing to show that there has been transgression of the bounds of rules and regulations which have caused any serious miscarriage of justice to the Appellants - the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in dismissing Application. There are no good grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 and 4914/2020 before the Adjudicating Authority. Since the RP later admitted their claims in full, both the IAs were rendered infructuous. The claim submitted to the RP pertained purportedly only to the principal amount which was yet to be recovered from the Corporate Debtor. 4. Taking the process of CIRP forward, the RP had invited resolution plans. The RP had presented the plans so received from the Resolution Applicants before the Committee of Creditors ( CoC in short) and the resolution plan was approved by the CoC with 96.93% vote share. Notably, the resolution plan is pending approval of the Adjudicating Authority. In the interim, the Appellants aggrieved with the resolution plan filed IA No. 4171/2021 before the Adjudicating Authority challenging the resolution plan as approved by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the said IA vide impugned order dated 01.08.2023 against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly dismissed their IA No.4171/2021 without considering the resolution plan which plan is not in consonance with Section 30(2) of the IBC and Regulation 38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants have been duly taken care of but by making selective and deliberate omissions while referring to Clause 9, they have intentionally distorted the facts. It was emphatically asserted that the resolution plan having been approved by the CoC in their commercial wisdom, the scope of interference in the resolution plan in the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review by the Adjudicating Authority is extremely limited. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority had rightly dismissed the IA 4171/2021. 7. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. 8. It is the case of the Appellants that they had raised their objections before the Authorized Representative with respect to certain clauses contained in the resolution plan, particularly clause 9. Submission was pressed that the resolution plan invalidly deducts payment of compensation/interest from their principal amount which is unjust. Moreover, they have been treated differently from other homebuyers to whom possession is being given as they will have a benefit of 65% more than them. The resolution plan is also conditional as it provides that the payment s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial wisdom of the CoC as has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in various judgments cannot be called in question. Moreover, the Resolution Plan makes adequate provisions for consideration of the claims of the Applicants. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present application. (Emphasis supplied) 12. In the present facts of the case, we find that the Appellants were given a chance to raise their objections before the RP as well as the Authorized Representative of the Home Buyers. The RP did not falter in accepting their claims in spite of expressing some reservations initially. The RP had also facilitated the Appellants in routing their objections to the Authorized Representative and the latter had provided them the window of opportunity of taking up their issues with the resolution applicants. We are of the considered opinion that the RP and the Authorized Representative did not fail in the discharge of their responsibilities and no cause of action survives on this count. 13. We also notice that it is an undisputed fact that the Appellants constitute a total of 25 home buyers with admitted claims of about Rs.14 crore as against a total of approxi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Jaypee judgment supra as hereinunder: 163. Taking up other aspects of the rival submissions and having examined the scheme of the Code in relation to a plan of insolvency resolution, we are clearly of the view that the propositions of some of the associations and individual homebuyers to claim themselves as dissenting homebuyers and thereby, dissenting financial creditors do not stand in conformity with the scheme of the Code and the manner of voting on a plan of resolution by the Committee of Creditors. *** *** *** *** 164.3. In the face of clear language of sub-section (3A) of Section 25A of the Code, read with the law declared by this Court in Pioneer Urban(supra), the suggestion on behalf of the dissatisfied homebuyers that the said provision was only intended to iron out the logistical issues and technical difficulties is required to be rejected altogether. The said provision, as held by this Court, is to iron out the creases that might have been felt in the proper working of Section 25A; and it is made explicit that the allottees, even if not a homogeneous group, they could vote only either to approve the resolution plan or to disapprove the same. Dive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the case that the AR of homebuyers has not voted in accordance with the decision taken by a vote of more than 50% of the voting share of homebuyers who did cast their vote. In the given set of facts, we have no hesitation in thoroughly disapproving the unnecessary imputations made by one set of homebuyers against the AR that he made any incorrect statement before the CoC. That being the position, and the authorised representative having voted in accordance with the instructions given to him from the class of financial creditors i.e., homebuyers, every individual falling in this class remains bound by his vote and any association or homebuyer of JIL cannot be acceded the locus to stand differently and to project its/his own viewpoint or grievance by way of objections or by way of appeal. All such objections and appeals are required to be rejected on this ground alone. *** *** *** *** 170. To sum up this part of discussion, in our view, after approval of the resolution plan of NBCC by CoC, where homebuyers as a class assented to the plan, any individual homebuyer or association cannot maintain any challenge to the resolution plan nor could be treated as carrying any le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention raised by the Appellants that their interests have been prejudiced since the resolution plan is contingent and conditional, it has been countered by the Respondent No. 1 that it is a misconceived argument. It was contended that clause 9 deals with the compensation amounts received by the Appellants as ordered by NCDRC including legal costs incurred by them. The Resolution Plan has made adequate provisions for consideration of the claims of the Appellants. It was submitted that the resolution plan clearly provides for treatment that would be provided to the Appellants in case the units are not resold. We find that the Adjudicating Authority has taken due note of these provisions in clause 9 of the resolution plan which take care of the concerns of the Appellants and find place in Para 10 of the impugned order as extracted hereunder: - To compensate such allottees towards additional cost including legal cost incurred by them, Resolution applicant propose to pay 35% of the additional amount realized by the resolution applicant on sale of units booked by such allottee. The additional amount realized will be the difference between the value received by the RA on sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
