9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation Memorandum, the list of creditors and other aspect of the matter. The Resolution Applicant has not extended any promise to the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor that the claim submitted by Financial Creditor or any other creditor shall be accepted in toto. The mandatory contents of the Resolution Plan are laid down in the CIRP Regulations, 2016. If a Resolution Plan is compliant with the provision of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the IBC and the provisions of the Regulations, 2016, the Plan cannot be faulted on the ground of the promissory estoppel, which the Appellant is pressing against the Resolution Professional, who has admitted the claim. The submission of the Appellant based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed into service in reference to the Resolution Plan, which has been submitted by a Resolution Applicant and approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the objections filed by the Appellant to the Resolution Plan. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been obtained from LIC HFL. The RP, however, vide email dated 30.06.2021 informed the Appellant that pursuant to the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors ( CoC ) held on 28.06.2021, the claim of the Appellant has been restored as a Financial Creditor belonging to a class of creditors. (v) Respondent No.2 submitted a Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan dealt with Financial Creditors class in two categories, i.e., affected homebuyers and unaffected homebuyers. Those homebuyers who have not obtained NOC from the LICHFL were treated as affected homebuyers and were dealt differently in Resolution Plan and those homebuyers, who have obtained NOC were treated differently. (vi) The Appellant filed an IA No.2974 of 2021, raising objections to the Resolution Plan. To the IA filed by the Appellant, both RP as well as the Successful Resolution Applicant ( SRA ) filed the replies. (vii) The Adjudicating Authority after considering the IA, rejected the objection. The Adjudicating Authority observed that since the Resolution Plan has been approved by the Homebuyers as a class, the Applicant, who belong to the class of Homebuyers, cannot individually object to the Resolution P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Homebuyers. It is submitted that the Appellant belongs to a class of creditors, who have approved the Resolution Plan and now cannot be allowed to question the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments has rejected the IA. 6. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that similar issues have been raised by another set of Homebuyers in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1162 of 2023 Sabari Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sivana Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ors., which had already been heard and the judgment is reserved by this Tribunal. The learned Counsel further submits that there is a valid classification between affected and unaffected Homebuyers and the Resolution Plan having been approved by the Homebuyers with requisite majority, the Appellant, who belongs to class of Homebuyers, cannot be allowed to challenge the Resolution Plan. 7. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 LIC HFL has also supported the impugned order and submits that that NCLT Mumbai Bench vide its order dated 19.07.2023 has already approved the Resolution Plan passed in IA No.2981 of 2021, which ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsofar as, submission of the Appellant that in the Resolution Plan one category of Homebuyers has been arbitrarily classified in two groups, i.e., affected homebuyers and unaffected homebuyers. The above issue has already been dealt by us in judgment dated 02.11.2023 delivered in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1162 of 2023 Sabari Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sivana Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ors., hence it needs no repetition in this judgment. In the above case, one of the issues which was framed in that case was Issue No.(iv), which is to the following effect: (iv) Whether the categorization of the homebuyers in class as Affected and Unaffected homebuyers is violative of Section 30(2)(e) and the Resolution Plan deserve to be set aside on this ground alone? 12. We have decided the Issue No.(iv) in the above case holding the classification of affected homebuyers and unaffected homebuyer as justified. Following the above judgment, we hold that Resolution Plan does not violate any provisions of the Code and classification of the homebuyers into two group is justified. Hence, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant in this regard has to be rejected. 13. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 19 of the judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court has held the following: 19. In fact, we must never forget that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is a doctrine whose foundation is that an unconscionable departure by one party from the subject-matter of an assumption which may be of fact or law, present or future, and which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of some course of conduct, act or omission, should not be allowed to pass muster. And the relief to be given in cases involving the doctrine of promissory estoppels contains a degree of flexibility which would ultimately render justice to the aggrieved party. The entire basis of this doctrine has been well put in a judgment of the Australian High Court in Commonwealth of Australia v. Verwayen [Commonwealth of Australia v. Verwayen, (1990) 170 CLR 394 (Aust)] , by Deane, J. in the following words: 1. While the ordinary operation of estoppel by conduct is between parties to litigation, it is a doctrine of substantive law, the factual ingredients of which fall to be pleaded and resolved like other factual issues in a case. The persons who may be bound by or who may take the benefit of such an estoppel exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he would sustain by acting upon the assumption if departure from the assumed state of affairs were permitted. In cases falling within Category (a), a critical consideration will commonly be that the allegedly estopped party knew or intended or clearly ought to have known that the other party would be induced by his conduct to adopt, and act on the basis of, the assumption. Particularly in cases falling within Category (b), actual belief in the correctness of the fact or state of affairs assumed may not be necessary. Obviously, the facts of a particular case may be such that it falls within more than one of the above categories. 5. The assumption may be of fact or law, present or future. That is to say, it may be about the present or future existence of a fact or state of affairs (including the state of the law or the existence of a legal right, interest or relationship or the content of future conduct). 6. The doctrine should be seen as a unified one which operates consistently in both law and equity. In that regard, equitable estoppel should not be seen as a separate or distinct doctrine which operates only in equity or as restricted to certain defined categories (e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esolution Plan on the basis of relying on the Information Memorandum, the list of creditors and other aspect of the matter. The Resolution Applicant has not extended any promise to the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor that the claim submitted by Financial Creditor or any other creditor shall be accepted in toto. The mandatory contents of the Resolution Plan are laid down in the CIRP Regulations, 2016. If a Resolution Plan is compliant with the provision of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the IBC and the provisions of the Regulations, 2016, the Plan cannot be faulted on the ground of the promissory estoppel, which the Appellant is pressing against the Resolution Professional, who has admitted the claim. We, thus, are of the view that submission of the Appellant based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed into service in reference to the Resolution Plan, which has been submitted by a Resolution Applicant and approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom. We, thus, do not find any merit in the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellant on the basis of promissory estoppel. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the Adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
