Class representation binds individual homebuyers; lone dissenters lack standing and review is limited to statutory compliance of the plan.

Class representation of homebuyers as a class of financial creditors bars a lone dissenting homebuyer from challenging a resolution plan approved by the class majority; the Tribunal applied precedents establishing that an authorised representative's class vote binds members and dismissed the challenge. A homebuyer lacks standing to initiate avoidance proceedings for preferential transactions, which are within the exclusive competence of the resolution professional or liquidator. The Adjudicating Authority's role is limited to assessing compliance with statutory requirements for approval of a resolution plan and not to re weigh CoC commercial choices; the plan's approval is upheld. The costs order against the appellant is set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a single homebuyer (minority member of the class of financial creditors) has locus to challenge the approval of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors; (ii) Whether an application under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (avoidance of preferential transactions) can be filed by a homebuyer; (iii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in approving the Resolution Plan by satisfying the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (iv) Whether the imposition of costs of Rs. 50,000 on the Appellant was justified.

Issue (i): Whether a single homebuyer has locus to challenge approval of a resolution plan approved by the CoC representing the class of homebuyers.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the scheme of the Code and binding precedents including the principle that homebuyers constitute a class of financial creditors and are represented by an authorised representative who votes in accordance with the majority of that class. The Tribunal noted the CoC approval with 83.46% voting share and relied on authority establishing that individual dissenting members within a class cannot independently challenge a plan approved by the class majority.

Conclusion: The appeal challenging the approval of the resolution plan by a single homebuyer is dismissed; a lone homebuyer lacks locus to challenge the CoC-approved plan.

Issue (ii): Whether an application under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be filed by a homebuyer.

Analysis: Section 43 contemplates filing by the liquidator or resolution professional when they are of the opinion that preferential transactions have been made. The Tribunal examined the statutory language and the role assigned to insolvency professionals, and the Adjudicating Authority's finding that an individual homebuyer is not authorised to file under Section 43.

Conclusion: An application under Section 43 cannot be maintained by a homebuyer; such applications are within the statutory competence of the resolution professional or liquidator.

Issue (iii): Whether the Adjudicating Authority rightly satisfied itself that the Resolution Plan complies with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the Adjudicating Authority's examination of the plan against the requirements of Section 30(2) and noted established law that the Adjudicating Authority's role is limited to satisfying those statutory requirements and not to interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The CoC had approved the plan with requisite majority and the Adjudicating Authority found compliance with Section 30(2).

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority correctly approved the Resolution Plan as meeting the requirements of Section 30(2); the approval is sustained.

Issue (iv): Whether the imposition of costs of Rs. 50,000 on the Appellant was justified.

Analysis: While the Adjudicating Authority found the Section 43 application frivolous and imposed costs to discourage vexatious litigation, the Tribunal considered fairness to a single homebuyer and the overall context of locus and conduct.

Conclusion: The imposition of costs of Rs. 50,000 on the Appellant is deleted; otherwise the impugned order is upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed; the Adjudicating Authority's orders rejecting the appellant's challenges and approving the resolution plan are affirmed except that the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the appellant is set aside, and parties shall bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where members of a class of financial creditors (such as homebuyers) are represented by an authorised representative, a resolution plan approved by the requisite majority of that class binds all members and individual minority members lack locus to challenge the plan; the Adjudicating Authority's review of a CoC-approved plan is limited to compliance with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---