Class voting by homebuyers binds all members; individual dissenting creditor claims and environmental objections were rejected.

Homebuyers constitute a distinct class of financial creditors and cannot claim individual dissenting creditor status to demand separate liquidation value outside the class vote. Communication of resolution plan addendums to the authorised representative was treated as communication to the entire class, and the class vote cast in accordance with the statutory majority bound all members. Allegations of procedural irregularity in the voting process were rejected. Environmental clearance concerns did not justify refusal of the plan where steps had already been taken before the competent authorities to obtain approval. The challenge to the resolution plan failed on all substantive grounds and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether individual homebuyers could claim the status of dissenting financial creditors and demand separate liquidation value under the insolvency framework; (ii) Whether the voting process on the resolution plan was vitiated by non-communication of addendums and alleged procedural irregularity by the authorised representative; (iii) Whether the apprehensions regarding environmental clearances and the plan's implementation justified rejection of the resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether individual homebuyers could claim the status of dissenting financial creditors and demand separate liquidation value under the insolvency framework.

Analysis: Homebuyers form a distinct class of financial creditors and are required to act through the authorised representative. A member of that class cannot, merely because he or she was not with the majority within the class, assert an individual status as a dissenting financial creditor. In that situation, the obligation to provide liquidation value to an individual homebuyer as though that person were a separate dissenting creditor does not arise.

Conclusion: The claim for separate liquidation value to each individual homebuyer was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the voting process on the resolution plan was vitiated by non-communication of addendums and alleged procedural irregularity by the authorised representative.

Analysis: The record showed that the authorised representative participated in the meetings, received communication about the addendums, and that the voting period was extended so that creditors could retain or change their votes. Once communication is made to the authorised representative, it is treated as communication to the class he represents. The majority decision of the voting homebuyers was duly ascertained, and the authorised representative was bound to cast the class vote accordingly. The class vote, once cast in accordance with the statutory majority, binds all members of the class.

Conclusion: The challenge to the voting process and to the conduct of the authorised representative failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the apprehensions regarding environmental clearances and the plan's implementation justified rejection of the resolution plan.

Analysis: Procurement of environmental clearance was recognised as necessary for implementation, but the material on record showed that the resolution professional had taken active steps before the competent authorities to secure the clearance. The pendency of those applications and the steps taken did not show any adverse conduct on the part of the resolution process or establish a ground to deny approval of the plan.

Conclusion: The environmental clearance objection did not warrant interference with the plan.

Final Conclusion: The application challenging the resolution plan failed on all substantive grounds and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An individual homebuyer cannot be treated as a dissenting financial creditor apart from the class vote, and once the authorised representative casts the class vote in accordance with the statutory majority after due communication, the decision binds all members of the class unless a legally sustainable procedural defect is shown.

---