NCLAT dismisses homebuyers' appeal challenging exclusion from CoC voting rights under approved Resolution Plan

NCLAT dismissed homebuyers' appeal challenging their exclusion from CoC voting rights despite holding valid Builder Buyer Agreements. The tribunal found the appeal infructuous as the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Adjudicating Authority in 2022 and subsequently reaffirmed by NCLAT in related cases. The tribunal upheld the commercial wisdom of CoC and declined to interfere with the approved Resolution Plan, noting appellants held only minuscule voting shares.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the Appellants, as homebuyers, were entitled to voting rights in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and whether their claims were validly rejected by the Resolution Professional.
• Whether the Resolution Plan should have been conducted on a project-wise basis, as per the precedent set in Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills-77, Gurgaon vs. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd.
• Whether the Appellants' claims were unjustly dismissed due to the absence of entries in the Corporate Debtor's cash register.
• Whether the Appellants' appeal against the rejection of their claims and the approval of the Resolution Plan was valid.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Entitlement to Voting Rights and Claim Rejection

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and its regulations, particularly concerning the submission and verification of claims by creditors, were central to this issue. The Essar Steel India Limited case was cited to emphasize that claims cannot be entertained after a Resolution Plan is approved.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Appellants held a negligible voting share of approximately 1% and that their claims were not reflected in the Corporate Debtor's books. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellants failed to provide adequate proof of their claims.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Appellants' claims were based on cash receipts not reflected in the Corporate Debtor's cash register. The Resolution Professional had requested further documentation, which the Appellants failed to provide.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the Essar Steel case, concluding that the Appellants' claims could not be entertained after the Resolution Plan's approval.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' arguments, noting that the Resolution Professional had adhered to the legal framework and that the Appellants had not substantiated their claims.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the Appellants' claims and their exclusion from the CoC.

Project-wise Resolution Plan

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The precedent set in Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills-77, Gurgaon vs. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. was considered, which mandates project-wise CIRP for real estate companies.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, which declined to interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the CoC had approved the Resolution Plan with a substantial majority, and the Appellants' negligible voting share did not impact the outcome.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the cited precedent but found no merit in the Appellants' arguments, given the overwhelming approval of the Resolution Plan.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' argument for a project-wise resolution, noting the CoC's commercial wisdom and the lack of merit in the appeal.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan and dismissed the appeal.

Rejection of Claims Due to Absence of Cash Register Entries

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the requirements for claim verification under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the CIRP Regulations.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the absence of entries in the cash register, combined with the lack of additional documentation, justified the rejection of the Appellants' claims.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional had conducted a thorough examination and reasonably concluded that the Appellants' claims were unsupported.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the relevant legal provisions, concluding that the rejection of the claims was justified.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' arguments, emphasizing the need for substantiated claims.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the Appellants' claims.

Appeal Against Rejection of Claims and Approval of Resolution Plan

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal considered the principles established in Essar Steel and other relevant cases regarding the finality of approved Resolution Plans.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Resolution Plan had been approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, and reaffirmed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Appellants' claims were not substantiated, and the Resolution Plan was approved with a significant majority.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the Essar Steel case, concluding that the appeal lacked merit.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' arguments, emphasizing the finality of the approved Resolution Plan.

Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal upheld the principles established in the Essar Steel case, emphasizing the finality of approved Resolution Plans and the need for substantiated claims. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants' claims were not substantiated and that their negligible voting share did not impact the Resolution Plan's approval. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with no costs awarded.

---