Homebuyers' appeal dismissed for non-maintainability, must follow majority decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing non-maintainability. It emphasized that dissenting homebuyers must abide by the majority decision, finding the resolution plan compliant with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provisions. The appeal was disposed of without costs, as there were no substantial grounds to interfere with the approved resolution plan.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Compliance of the resolution plan with sections 30(1) and 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
2. Provision for payment of debt to financial creditors (home buyers).
3. Adequacy of notice before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting.
4. Approval of resolution plan for the number of projects.
5. Maintainability of the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance of the resolution plan with sections 30(1) and 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC):

The Appellant argued that the resolution plan submitted by M/s. Alpha Corp. Development Private Limited (Respondent No. 2) was non-compliant with sections 30(1) and 30(2) of the IBC. They claimed that the plan suffered from serious irregularities and surreptitious amendments prejudicial to the interests of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). However, the Tribunal did not find any substantial evidence to support these claims. The Tribunal noted that the resolution plan was approved by an overwhelming majority of 99.97% of the voting homebuyers, indicating compliance with the required provisions.

2. Provision for payment of debt to financial creditors (home buyers):

The Appellant contended that the resolution plan did not make provisions for the payment of debt to 56% of the financial creditors (home buyers) who either voted against the plan or did not vote at all. The Tribunal referenced section 25-A (3A) of the IBC, which mandates that the Authorised Representative votes on behalf of all financial creditors he represents based on the majority decision. It was noted that the individual homebuyers' views are subsumed in the majority decision, and the dissenting minority must abide by the majority's decision.

3. Adequacy of notice before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting:

The Appellant claimed that the Resolution Professional did not provide sufficient notice before convening the CoC meeting, thus preventing proper examination of the proposed resolution plan. The Tribunal found that the process of selecting the Authorised Representative and the manner of participation in CoC meetings were clearly outlined in the IBC and CIRP Regulations. There was no deficiency or irregularity in the selection of the Authorised Representative, and the voting process was conducted in compliance with the regulations.

4. Approval of resolution plan for the number of projects:

The Appellant asserted that the resolution plan was approved for four projects, not three, and that the Adjudicating Authority erred in its presumption. The Tribunal did not find this claim substantiated and noted that the resolution plan was approved by the CoC as per the majority decision, which included the projects in question.

5. Maintainability of the appeal:

The Respondent No. 2 challenged the maintainability of the appeal, citing a previous dismissal of a similar matter by the Hon'ble Chairperson Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appeal was not maintainable on the same grounds as the previous case. The Tribunal emphasized that once a majority decision is made by the financial creditors in class, the dissenting minority cannot independently challenge the decision. This principle was supported by the Supreme Court judgment in "Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Ors. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. and Ors.- 2021 SCC OnLine SC 253."

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-maintainability, stating that the dissenting homebuyers, being a minuscule minority, must abide by the majority decision. The resolution plan was found to be compliant with the IBC provisions, and there were no substantial grounds to interfere with the approval of the resolution plan. The appeal was disposed of, with no order as to cost.

---