TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Minority homebuyers cannot challenge resolution plan approved by 87.60% majority under Section 25A</h1> <h3>Shubhkamna City Welfare Association Through its Authorized Signatory & Anr. Versus Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Through Resolution Professional & Anr.</h3> Shubhkamna City Welfare Association Through its Authorized Signatory & Anr. Versus Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Through Resolution Professional & Anr. - ... Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the appeal by the appellants.2. Approval of the resolution plan by the CoC.3. Objections raised by dissenting homebuyers and other creditors.4. Competence of the appellants to challenge the resolution plan.Summary:1. Maintainability of the Appeal:The appeal was filed u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Shubhkamna City Welfare Association and Subhkamna City Welfare Association against the order dated 12.09.2022 by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, New Delhi). The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the appellants do not fall within the category of 'aggrieved person' as per Section 61 of the Code. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. Vs. NBCC (India) Limited & Ors. (2022) and other related cases, concluding that dissatisfied homebuyers and associations cannot challenge the resolution plan if the majority of their class has approved it. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.2. Approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC:The resolution plan submitted by Surender Kumar Singhal and Sunil Kumar Agarwal was approved by the CoC with an affirmative voting percentage of 87.60%. The commercial wisdom of the CoC was given paramount status without judicial intervention, as supported by the Supreme Court's decision in K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. (2019).3. Objections Raised by Dissenting Homebuyers and Other Creditors:Four sets of objections were raised against the approval of the resolution plan. The first set by dissenting homebuyers was dismissed based on the principle that individual homebuyers or associations cannot maintain any challenge to the resolution plan if the homebuyers as a class have assented to it. The second set by M/s Merina Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., the third by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida), and the fourth by GNIDA were also considered. The Tribunal upheld the CoC's decision, emphasizing the commercial wisdom of the CoC.4. Competence of the Appellants to Challenge the Resolution Plan:The Tribunal found that the appellants did not provide evidence of the number of members in their association or any list of members with the appeal. The Tribunal reiterated that the minority homebuyers must follow the majority within their class and cannot challenge the resolution plan. The Tribunal referenced Section 25-A of the Code and Regulation 16-A(9) of the Regulations, which mandate that the views of individual homebuyers are subsumed in the majority decision expressed through their Authorised Representative.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed as the appellants did not qualify as 'aggrieved persons' and the objections raised did not hold merit against the approved resolution plan. The Tribunal upheld the CoC's decision, emphasizing the importance of the commercial wisdom of the CoC and the binding nature of the majority decision within a class of creditors.
TaxTMI 