9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jab National Bank has out rightly rejected the settlement proposals. YEIDA who has claimed of Rs.751 Crores has also expressed its reservation to the proposal and in its affidavit has submitted that the proposals deserve to be rejected. When there are huge liabilities on the corporate debtor and lenders are not expressing their agreement with the proposal and having unanimously rejected the settlement proposal and further, the registered association of homebuyers and another set of homebuyers who had earlier initiated Section 7 proceedings against the corporate debtor in the year 2020 are opposed to any settlement plan. Looking to the huge liabilities against the corporate debtor, it is satisfied that present is not a case where this Tribunal may interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 application. Present is a case where resolution of the corporate debtor is required to be found in accordance with statutory scheme under the IBC and the CIRP Regulations. In view of the interim order dated 29.07.2024, no further steps could be taken by the IRP except collation of the claims. The period from 29.07.2024 till today need to be excluded in the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 18.09.2018. On 21.08.2019, Original Application was filed by the financial creditor along with the other consortium members for amount of Rs.292,86,07,288/-. Corporate debtor vide its letter dated 06.12.2022 has also submitted an OTS proposal to the lenders. Punjab & Sind Bank filed an application under Section 7 dated 13.07.2023 claiming amount in default of Rs.216,92,87,046/- upto 30.06.2023 along with pendente-lite and future interest. Adjudicating Authority issued notice to the corporate debtor in response to which reply was filed by the corporate debtor. In the reply, various objections including that petition has not been filed with proper authority and application is barred by time were taken. Corporate debtor also pleaded that it has approached the financial creditor for settlement of dues. It was pleaded that the corporate debtor is willing to safeguard the interests of the lenders. There are numerous homebuyers who are stakeholders of the corporate debtor and whose interest are to be protected. Rejoinder-affidavit was also filed by the financial creditor responding to the various objections raised by the corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch have already been invited. Appellant has given a settlement proposal dated 06.08.2024 with investor- M/s. Nisus Finance Services Co. Ltd. which proposal was considered by Punjab & Sind Bank and in the Joint Lenders' Meeting (JLM) held on 14.08.2024 the proposal was not accepted. Appellant submitted 2nd proposal dated 26.09.2024 with investor namely- HRDI Group Private Limited and IA No.6948 of 2024 was filed by the Appellant dated 24.09.2024 bringing on record the 2nd proposal. This Tribunal on 26.09.2024 noticing the 2nd proposal submitted by the Appellant which was to be circulated by the Appellant, granted two weeks' time to the Appellant to complete the proposal and circulate it to the Bank as well as to all the homebuyers. Proposal was also permitted to be put on website. Objections to the proposal were also permitted to be filed. 5. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA), a land owning company who has allotted the land in question for the project vide allotment letter dated 01.08.2011 filed an IA No.7607 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024 praying for impleadment/ intervention in the appeal. A separate objection dated 22.10.2024 was also filed by YEIDA objecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als submitted by the appellant were not accepted. 9. Another Affidavit dated 20.02.2025 has been filed by the Appellant submitting a 3rd settlement proposal claiming to have obtained support of another investor namely- Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd. In the Affidavit, details of the settlement proposal submitted by the appellant has been brought on the record. The lenders have been proposed to pay with their ledger balance within three years. YEIDA has also been proposed to be paid an amount of Rs.387.34 Crore in three years. Proposal further stated that the investor proposes to infuse Rs.50 Crores. Rs. 5 Crore as interim finance and promoters proposes to infuse Rs.50 Crores by Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd., a development manager. 10. We have heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Sanjay Bajaj, Learned Counsel for Punjab & Sind Bank. We have heard Counsel appearing in IA No.6691 of 2024 filed on behalf of Supertech Golf Country Welfare Association. We have also heard counsel appearing in IA No.5972 of 2024 filed by Himanshu Shehrawat and 57 Ors. We have also heard Shri Arvind Nayyar, Learned Senior Counsel appearing in IA No.7378 of 2024 filed by MD Tofik So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the Appellant was asked to provide various documents which have not been fully provided by the Appellant. YEIDA being land owning development authority, no development work can be carried out on the lease premises without applicant's approval. The dues of YEIDA cannot be wished away by the Appellant. The proposal submitted is not viable and contrary to the law and liable to be rejected. 14. Counsel appearing for Supertech Golf Country Welfare Association submits that the proposals given by the appellant are not acceptable to the registered association i.e. Supertech Golf Country Welfare Association. The submission of the appellant that 75% of the development work have already taken place in the project "Golf Country", is totally wrong. Project is at a very pathetic condition. It is further submitted that with regard to zero policy scheme of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant has already made an application under the scheme which is not accepted. Appellant again applied for the scheme on 20.11.2023 which application came to be rejected vide order dated 09.08.2024 by the YEIDA. Appellant is not entitled for any relief in this appeal. Appellant having not approached this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of interests of the homebuyers. Respondent No.3 to recommence and complete the construction, applicants are not in favour of the insolvency process. 17. The factum of disbursement of term loan of Rs.140 Crores to the corporate debtor is an admitted fact. Declaration of account of the corporate debtor as NPA and notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and thereafter filing an application under Section 7 is matter of record. In Part IV of Section 7 application dated 13.07.2020, details of the disbursement, creation of charges on Plot No.TS-05, Sector 22-D, Yamuna Expressway, Greater Noida, U.P., issuance of revival letters dated 31.03.2016, 26.07.2016 and 28.02.2019 is pleaded as well as submission of OTS on 06.12.2022, account of corporate debtor was declared NPA on 30.06.2018. Amount claimed in Part-IV, Item No.2 is as follows:- "Part-IV 2. Amount Claimed to be in default and date on which the default occurred Rs.216,92,87,046.00 (Rupees Two Hundred Sixteen Crores Ninety Two Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand Forty-Six only) up to 30.06.2023 as along with pendent-lite and future interest from 01.07.2023 till payment, actual realisation in full duly shown in statement of account annexed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e settlement proposals to take care of the debt of lenders. 1st proposal was submitted with M/s. Nisus Finance Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. dated 06.08.2024. 2nd proposal which was submitted by Appellant with investor- HRDI Group Private Limited dated 26.09.2024. The proposal which was submitted by M/s. Nisus Finance Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. was considered by Joint Lenders' Meeting held on 14.08.2024 and Joint Lenders' Meeting in its decision dated 14.08.2024 did not accept the settlement proposal submitted by the Appellant. It was thereafter 2nd proposal was submitted through HRDI Group Private Limited which proposal came to be considered by the financial creditor in its resolution dated 04.01.2025. Copy of the minutes of the Joint Lenders' Meeting has been brought on record by Punjab & Sind Bank along with their Affidavit dated 06.01.2025. In Item No.4 of the minutes, following has been recorded:- "Item No. 4: To discuss the Settlement Proposal of the loan to the Consortium for "Golf Country" Project vide Supertech Township Project Limited letter dated 26.09.2024. In the meeting all the lenders unanimously rejected the OTS proposal since it is not in conformity with Bank's Recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... developers. The calculation should be done denovo from the date of allotment and delivery of land to the developer. iii. Inclusion of Co-developers: For harnessing additional funds to ensure project completion, the Committee recommends allowing developers to induct co-developers, either for entire projects or specific parts thereof without any permission from Noida/Greater Noida and Land-Owning Authorities. However, Land Authorities would be informed of such inductions. This will foster collaborative efforts and expedite completion times. iv. Partial Surrender Policy: The Committee proposes a flexible policy that allows for partial surrender of land. This will give developers a greater degree of flexibility to adjust their commitments based on their operational capabilities. All dues on the surrendered land will be waived. The Authority may adjust money already paid for surrendered land with outstanding dues of the developers. Land costs have increased in the past ten years. The Authority will be more than compensated by selling the surrendered land to fresh allottees. D. Plan Approval/Extension Process: The Committee recommends allowing plan approvals and extensions witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Golf Country Welfare Association, copy of the order issued by YEIDA dated 09.08.2024 has been brought on the record where YEIDA has in reference to the request made by Appellant for zero period by letter dated 20.11.2023, has communicated that the said request cannot be accepted due to non-fulfilment of all parameters. Copy of the order is brought on the record along with IA as Annexure A3. 24. The financial creditor- Punjab & Sind Bank who has initiated Section 7 application have filed affidavit bringing on record the minutes of the Joint Lenders' Meeting which record that all members unanimously have rejected the settlement proposal submitted by the appellant. It is to be noted that the proposal which is circulated along with the affidavit dated 20.01.2022 is the similar proposal which was contained in 2nd settlement proposal submitted with HRDI Group Private Limited. The facts indicate that the corporate debtor itself has no financial capacity to carry on the project even under supervision of the IRP. Appellant has come up with three settlement proposals by three different investors from time to time. With regard to last proposal submitted by Apex Heights Pvt. Ltd., counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He has also given the time line within which the project would be completed. Not only this, but he has also undertaken to refund the amount paid by the seven objectors, if they so desire. He has further agreed that there shall be a team of 5 persons, 2 from the homebuyer's side and 2 from the management side and that the entire process shall be monitored by the IRP. 23. We find that there is every possibility that if the CIRP is permitted, the cost that the homebuyers will have to pay, would be much higher, inasmuch as the offer made by the resolution applicants could be after taking into consideration the price of escalation, etc. As against this, the Promoter has filed a specific undertaking specifying therein that the cost of the flat would not be escalated and that he would honour the BBA signed by the previous management." 26. In the above case, only 7 out of 457 homebuyers were opposed to the settlement plan. The present is a case where registered homebuyers and other group of homebuyers are opposed to settlement plan. Thus, it is not a case of only miniscule of homebuyers objecting to the settlement plan. In the above reference, Hon'ble Court has decided the appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
