Tribunal Upholds Approval of Resolution Plan, Rejects Applicant Claims

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's claims regarding registration of sale-deeds for unsold plots, settlement of rights on the plots, reconsideration of the Resolution Plan, disclosure of PMS investors and their claims, allegations of usurious claims by PMS investors, discrimination against the Applicant in the Resolution Plan, and approval process of the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal found that the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority, and concluded that the Applicant's grievances were duly considered and transparently addressed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Registration of sale-deeds for unsold plots.
2. Settlement of rights on the plots.
3. Reconsideration of the Resolution Plan.
4. Disclosure of PMS investors and their claims.
5. Allegations of usurious claims by PMS investors.
6. Discrimination against the Applicant in the Resolution Plan.
7. Approval process of the Resolution Plan.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Registration of Sale-Deeds for Unsold Plots:
The Applicant sought directions for the Resolution Professional (RP) to register sale-deeds for all sale-agreements in respect of unsold plots held by RH LLP, similar to home buyers who purchased plots before the debenture investment by RMF. Alternatively, the Applicant requested a settlement at Rs. 2,624 per sq. ft. or the release of its rights on the plots.

2. Settlement of Rights on the Plots:
The Applicant also sought a directive for the RP to reconsider the Resolution Plan to incorporate the above aspects. The RP, however, contended that the Applicant failed to substantiate its claims and omitted necessary parties, indicating that the Application was not filed with bona fide intentions.

3. Reconsideration of the Resolution Plan:
The Applicant alleged that the Resolution Plan was biased and discriminatory, favoring certain financial creditors over others, including the Applicant. The RP maintained that the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with the requisite majority and was in accordance with the law.

4. Disclosure of PMS Investors and Their Claims:
The Applicant argued that the RP did not disclose the identities and amounts due to individual PMS investors, which was against Regulation 13(2) of CIRP Regulations. The RP countered that it was not required to furnish calculation details of one creditor's claims to another and that the Applicant had not requested such details.

5. Allegations of Usurious Claims by PMS Investors:
The Applicant contended that the claims by PMS investors were usurious and extortionate, contravening the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, and Karnataka Money-Lending Act. The RP, however, stated that the claims were verified and admitted in accordance with the Code and CIRP Regulations.

6. Discrimination Against the Applicant in the Resolution Plan:
The Applicant claimed that the Resolution Plan abruptly changed its status to an investment agreement holder, reducing its claim from Rs. 6 crores to Rs. 2 crores, while other financial creditors were not subjected to such changes. The RP argued that the Applicant's grievances were considered and discussed in CoC meetings, and the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with a majority vote.

7. Approval Process of the Resolution Plan:
The RP emphasized that the Resolution Plan was finalized after due discussions and deliberations among CoC members and prospective Resolution Applicants. The RP maintained transparency and provided due opportunity for negotiation and redressal of concerns. The Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and subsequently by the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given due opportunity to address its grievances, which were considered in a transparent manner. The Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant's claims and rejected the Application.

---