9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was not approved by 90% votes. HELD THAT:- The Appellant, Resolution Professional whose summary of voting holding that 12A application was not approved has been set aside by the Adjudicating Authority. The Resolution Professional is duty bound to ensure that the CIRP process is conducted in accordance with provisions of IBC and Regulations. In the facts of the present case where opinion of the Resolution Professional, who was Chairman of the CoC holding that 12A proposal is not approved has been overturned by the Adjudicating Authority, the Resolution Professional is an aggrieved person from the said decision since the decision of the Adjudicating Authority directly overturns the decision of the Resolution Professional. In so far as judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Regen Powertech Private Limited vs. Giriraj Enterprises Anr. [ 2023 (9) TMI 1406 - SUPREME COURT] relied by the Respondent No.4, the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court held that The Resolution Professional should have maintained a neutral stand. It is for the aggrieved parties, including the Committee of Creditors of Regen Powertech Private Limited (RPPL) and Regen Infrastructure and Services Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plete the CIRP within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of Form G. Resolution Professional before issuing Form G with regard to Estella Project shall constitute the CoC for the Project Estella and proceed further as per decision of the CoC so constituted. Appeal filed by Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor and Homebuyer allowed. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Devansh Jain, Ms. Vasudha Chadha, Mr. Shashwat Duggal, Advocates , Mr. Alok Dhir, Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Mr. Kanishk Khetan, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Nidhi Yadav, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Mr. Aman Kalra, Mr. Abhinav Mathur, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Lalit Mohan, Mr. Videh Vaish, Advocates for R-1,2. For Appellant: Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Devansh Jain, Ms. Vasudha Chadha, Mr. Shashwat Duggal, Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Mr. Harshwardhan Thakur, Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Lalit Mohan, Mr. Videh V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the CoC held on 10.01.2023, the Resolution Plan of Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. as well as withdrawal proposal of Mr. Sidharth Chauhan, Promoter/Director was put for discussion and voting. E-voting was conducted from 14.01.2023 to 18.01.2023. The Resolution Plan of Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. was not approved. After analysing voting result, the Resolution Professional found that with regard to Item No.B2 i.e. revised proposal under Section 12A submitted by Mr. Sidharth Chauhan, 40.15% votes by Financial Creditors in a class voted Yes whereas 29.20% voted No and 11.08% was abstained. Punjab National Bank having 12.42% voted for the plan and Punjab Sind Bank having 7.15% voted against the plan. The Resolution Professional opined that the total votes in favour of plan is 52.57% which is less than the requisite 90% of the voting share of the CoC. The resolution was not approved. 5.2. The Authorised Representative of the homebuyers filed an IA No. 753 of 2023 questioning the minutes recorded by the Resolution Professional where proposal Item No. B2 was held not approved. In the application, following prayers were made:- a) Allow the present Application and Appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plan of Respondent No. 3 before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for re-consideration and re-voting and under relevant provisions of the Code along with Regulations, 2016. (v) Any other relief/direction/order which this Learned Adjudicating Authority may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5.4. Applicant in IA No. 779 of 2023 opposed the withdrawal plan submitted under Section 12A. Application IA No.779 of 2023 came to be rejected by order dated 13.07.2023. Paragraph 2 of the order is as follows:- 2. In view of the order dated 24.05.2023 passed in IA-753/2023 whereby this Adjudicating Authority allowed Section 12A application and permitted the Applicant to withdraw the main matter. Hence, the present IA-779/2023 dismissed as infructuous. 5.5. Mr. Vijay Saini, aggrieved by the order, has filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1194 of 2023. 6. We have heard Shri Alok Dhir, Learned Counsel appearing for Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.791 of 2023, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.982 of 2023 and Shri Sandeep Bajaj, Learned Counsel appears f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector. A huge amount was collected from the homebuyers and they have not been provided their units in spite of lapse of several years. It is submitted that both the projects of the Corporate Debtor namely NCR One Project and Estella Project are incomplete. It is also contended that the Adjudicating Authority committed error in holding that the proposal under Section 12A stood withdrawn on the basis of e-voting consequent to 27th CoC meeting held on 10.01.2023. It was submitted that 90% threshold for withdrawal of Resolution Plan by the CoC has been kept for purpose and object. The voting on the application under Section 12A is not voting on a Resolution Plan or voting where majority of votes of homebuyers have to be looked into. It is true that the homebuyers are creditor in class and majority votes of the creditor in class has to be treated as the views of the homebuyers on a particular subject but majority decision of homebuyers as a creditor in class is not sufficient for Section 12A proposal. The Resolution Professional has rightly opined that the proposal under Section 12A was not passed. 9. In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1194 of 2023, Learned Counsel for the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Batra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 promoter/director supported the impugned order and submits that the interpretation put by the Adjudicating Authority on Section 25A is in accord with the statutory scheme. It is submitted that as per proposal under Section 12A, NCR Greens Project and Estella Project were to be completed within six months and one year respectively. A Monitoring Committee has been constituted comprising of a Retd. Chief Justice of High Court and there are other members. Several meetings have been held by Monitoring Committee and substantial progress has been made. The project NCR Greens is almost complete. The possession shall also be handed over till the end of February of 135 semi furnished units which shall be completed by then. Out of 653 units in project NCR Green, 415 units have already been handed over. It is submitted that Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.791 of 2023 filed by the Resolution Professional is not maintainable since Resolution Professional cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. On 23.11.2023, possession has issued of 103 units. As far as the Estella Project is concerned, upon direction of Monitoring Committee, the structural a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication was challenged and it was pleaded in the application IA No.753 of 2023 that the proposal under Section 12A stood approved. 15. Before we proceed further, we may notice necessary statutory provisions governing withdrawal of insolvency application. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 as initially enacted did not contain any provision for withdrawal of application. Section 12A was inserted in the Code by Act 26 of 2018 w.e.f. 06.06.2018. Section 12A as inserted w.e.f. 06.06.2018 is as follows:- 12A. Withdrawal of application admitted under section 7, 9 or 10. The Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of application admitted under section 7 or section 9 or section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of ninety per cent. voting share of the committee of creditors, in such manner as may be specified. 16. By the same amendment i.e. Act 26 of 2018, Section 25A was also inserted in IBC Code. Section 25A which is as follows:- 25A. Rights and duties of authorised representative of financial creditors. (1) The authorised representative under sub-section (6) or sub-section (6A) of section 21 or sub-section (5) of section 24 sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditor] and such other requirements as may be specified by the Board : Provided that the committee of creditors shall not approve a resolution plan, submitted before the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 (Ord. 7 of 2017), where the resolution applicant is ineligible under section 29A and may require the resolution professional to invite a fresh resolution plan where no other resolution plan is available with it: Provided further that where the resolution applicant referred to in the first proviso is ineligible under clause (c) of section 29A, the resolution applicant shall be allowed by the committee of creditors such period, not exceeding thirty days, to make payment of overdue amounts in accordance with the proviso to clause (c) of section 29A: Provided also that nothing in the second proviso shall be construed as extension of period for the purposes of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 12, and the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be completed within the period specified in that subsection]: [Provided also that the eligibility criteria in section 29A as amended by the Insolvency and Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration before the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.753 of 2023. Item No. B2 which came for consideration before the 27th CoC meeting was with regard to Section 12A proposal submitted by Mr. Sidharth Chauhan, Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor. After receiving the voting result, summary record of the decision taken on the relevant agenda item regarding the 27th CoC meeting has been minuted. We, in the present case, are concerned with Item No.B2. On Item No.B2, Resolution Professional has recorded following:- ITEM NO. B2 TO CONSIDER, DELIBERATE, DECIDE AND APPROVE THE REVISED PROPOSAL UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE IBC, 2016 SUBMITTED BY MR. SIDHARTH CHAUHAN, DIRECTOR (POWER SUSPENDED) OF CORPORATE DEBTOR The Following Resolution was proposed for e-voting. RESOLVED THAT the revised proposal submitted under Section 12A of IBC, 2016 by Mr. Sidharth Chauhan, Director (Power Suspended) be and is hereby approved. RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Committee of Creditors authorized the Resolution Professional to submit the Proposal as approved herein to the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority for approval in terms of Section 12A of the Insolvency and B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Professional after noticing the aforesaid voting result has recorded that the Agenda Item No.B2 is not approved by the CoC. 22. We may also notice analysis and conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority as recorded in the impugned order. Adjudicating Authority has relied on judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association Ors. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. Ors.- (2022) 1 SCC 401 and after referring to the said judgment has concluded that the Resolution Professional ought to have followed the method prescribed under sub-section 3A of Section 25A and come to the conclusion that since more than 50% of the voting has been done in favour of Section 12A proposal, he should have taken it as 100% since the Financial Creditor have to be treated as a class. In paragraphs 22, 23 and 26, Adjudicating Authority has held:- 22. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association Ors. Versus NBCC (India) Ltd Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 401 dated 24.03.2021, wherein it has been clearly laid down that sub-section 3A deals with Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t within two weeks. 24. The Adjudicating Authority, thus, has held that with regard to application under Section 12A the voting ought to have been computed by the Resolution Professional in accordance with Section 25A (3A) i.e. Authorised Representative shall cast his vote on behalf of all Financial Creditors since decision taken by more than 50% of the voting share of the Financial Creditors. In coming to the above conclusion, Adjudicating Authority has failed to notice the proviso to sub-section (3A) of Section 25A. Proviso to sub-section (3A) is as follows:- 25A. Rights and duties of authorised representative of financial creditors. (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: Provided that for a vote to be cast in respect of an application under section 12A, the authorised representative shall cast his vote in accordance with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (3A) clearly indicate that the decision of creditor of class by vote of more than 50% of the voting share as contemplated by sub-section (3A) is not applicable with regard to voting on a 12A application. The Adjudicating Authority has committed error in coming to the conclusion that vote share of creditor in class i.e. homebuyers have to be accepted as the majority vote i.e. 50% of the voting share, hence, it has to be held that 100% of homebuyers have voted for the 12A proposal. The Adjudicating Authority has followed this logic and held that 100% of homebuyers i.e. 80.43% should be treated to have voted in favour of the proposal, hence, the 12A proposal has to be treated to be approved since 12.42% was also voted by Punjab National Bank in favour of the plan. 28. We are of the view that the interpretation put by the Adjudicating Authority on provision of 12A is not in accord with the statutory scheme. This can be demonstrated by taking a simple example; in a case where homebuyers i.e. creditor in class have 100% vote share in the CoC. Whether if majority of homebuyers i.e. 50% of the homebuyers take a decision to approve 12A proposal, can it be held that the proposal of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any logic in the submissions so made. A re-look at Sub-section (3A) of Section 25A would make it clear that '50%' for the purpose of the said provision is of those homebuyers who cast their vote. On the percentage figures as given before us, out of the total voting share of homebuyers at 57.66%, the persons carrying 22.51% voting share simply abstained and of the persons casting their votes, ayes were having the voting share of 34.10% whereas nays were having the voting share of 1.05%. Obviously, 50% would be counted, only of the persons who chose to vote where, much higher than 50% of the homebuyers who cast their vote, stood for approval of the resolution plan of NBCC86. Such a voting cannot be set at naught for the purported dissatisfaction of a miniscule minority, which was about 3.69% in terms of the number of persons voting; and about 1.05% in terms of the voting share. They have to sail along with the overwhelming majority. That is the purport and effect of 'drag along' or 'sail along' provisions in the scheme of the Code. 166. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the suggestions that there was no cent percent approval of the resolution pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12A was approved by 90% whereas proposal had received only 52.57% of vote share as recorded by Resolution Professional on Item No. B2 as extracted above. Proposal submitted by Respondent No.4 not having been approved, Adjudicating Authority committed error in passing the impugned order by closing the CIRP and directing the Resolution Professional to handover the assets and documents to the promoter of the Corporate Debtor. Order dated 24.05.2023 is clearly unsustainable. 31. Shri Sumant Batra contended that Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.719 of 2023 filed by the Resolution Professional is not maintainable since the Resolution Professional could not be held to be aggrieved person against order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 24.05.2023. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Regen Powertech Private Limited vs. Giriraj Enterprises Anr., Civil Appeal Nos.5985-6001 of 2023 . 32. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent No.4. The present is a case where the Resolution Professional has challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 24.05.2023 by which order the Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re can be no question of Resolution Professional taking, in the present case, any sides. In so far as computation of votes is concerned, the Resolution Professional is required to compute the votes as per the statute. Hence, the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Regen Powertech Private Limited vs. Giriraj Enterprises Anr. which was in the facts of the said case cannot be said to be applicable in the present set of facts. We, thus, are of the view that the appeal could not be held to be not maintainable, at the instance of the Resolution Professional. It is relevant to the notice that the said order has also been challenged by Homebuyer Mr. Vijay Saini in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.982 of 2023 with regard to which there is no issue of maintainability. 34. Now we proceed to examine the submission advanced on behalf of the promoter/director as well as homebuyers of Sidhartha Buildhomes Pvt. Ltd. that the proposal submitted by Respondent No.4- promoter/director for withdrawal under Section 12A contain a detailed plan and mechanism for completion of both the projects and handing over the possession of units to the homebuyers. In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.791 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t complete, the said project need to be kept out of CIRP. However, Respondent No.4 shall be entirely responsible for handing over units to each and every unit holder of NCR Green Project. 37. We having already held that the order dated 24.05.2023 is unsustainable. The proposal under Section 12A having not been approved by 90% vote share of the CoC, the order dated 24.05.2023 has to be set aside reviving the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. 38. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on judgment of this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 926 of 2019- Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills vs. Umang Realtech Private Limited through IRP Ors. where this Tribunal has directed for reverse CIRP in facts and circumstances of the said case. We are also of the view that in the present case, the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor be revived and be confined to the Estella Project. Let the Resolution Professional constitute the CoC for the Estella Project. Taking in the CoC the homebuyers of Estella Project, the Financial Creditors- Punjab National Bank and Punjab Sind Bank shall also be part of the CoC. We permit the Resolution Professional to issue fresh Form-G with regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
