Resolution applicant not bound by promissory estoppel for rejected creditor claims under Section 30(2) IBC

NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed appeal challenging resolution plan rejection. Appellant sought to invoke promissory estoppel doctrine against resolution applicant after resolution professional admitted claim for 10 flats. Tribunal held that promissory estoppel cannot be applied against resolution applicant who submits plan based on information memorandum and creditor lists. Resolution applicant made no promise to accept all creditor claims in totality. Resolution plan complied with Section 30(2) IBC and CIRP Regulations 2016 requirements. Committee of creditors approved plan in commercial wisdom. Adjudicating authority correctly rejected appellant's objections to resolution plan.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Objection to the Resolution Plan by the Appellant.
2. Classification of Homebuyers as affected and unaffected.
3. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Summary:

1. Objection to the Resolution Plan by the Appellant:
The Appellant objected to the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Kabra Estate and Investment Consultant, which was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. The Appellant argued that the Resolution Plan discriminated against them by treating their claim differently from other homebuyers due to the lack of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from LIC Housing Finance Limited (LICHFL). The Adjudicating Authority rejected the objection, stating that the Resolution Plan had been approved by the homebuyers as a class, and individual objections could not be entertained. This decision was based on the Supreme Court judgment in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments vs. NBCC (India) Limited and others, (2022) 1 SCC 401.

2. Classification of Homebuyers as affected and unaffected:
The Resolution Plan categorized homebuyers into two groups: affected and unaffected. Affected homebuyers were those who did not obtain NOC from LICHFL, while unaffected homebuyers had obtained the NOC. The Appellant contended that this classification was arbitrary and illegal. However, the Tribunal upheld the classification, referencing a similar issue addressed in the judgment of Sabari Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sivana Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., where the classification was deemed justified and not in violation of Section 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

3. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel:
The Appellant argued that the principle of promissory estoppel should apply, as the Resolution Professional (RP) had initially admitted their claim for 10 flats. They cited Supreme Court judgments in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Manuelsons Hotels (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala to support their argument. However, the Tribunal concluded that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be applied to a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its commercial wisdom. The Tribunal reasoned that the Resolution Applicant had not made any promises to the creditors and that the acceptance of claims by the RP did not bind the Resolution Applicant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, finding no merit in the objections raised by the Appellant. The classification of homebuyers was upheld, and the application of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable to the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the objections to the Resolution Plan was affirmed.

---