https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449876 The NCLAT Chennai Bench dismissed an appeal regarding rejection of a resolution plan by creditors with 95.97% voting against it. Homebuyers challenged the rejection claiming inadequate protection of interests and that liquidation would worsen their position. The primary issue concerned addition of parties as third respondent. The Tribunal held that adding parties is discretionary based on facts and circumstances. Following Supreme Court precedent in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, the Tribunal ruled that mere interest in litigation fruits cannot justify impleading a party. The petitioner creditor was neither necessary nor proper party to the appeal, and appellants cannot be coerced to join unwanted parties unless legally compelled. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449876 The NCLAT Chennai Bench dismissed an appeal regarding rejection of a resolution plan by creditors with 95.97% voting against it. Homebuyers challenged the rejection claiming inadequate protection of interests and that liquidation would worsen their position. The primary issue concerned addition of parties as third respondent. The Tribunal held that adding parties is discretionary based on facts and circumstances. Following Supreme Court precedent in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, the Tribunal ruled that mere interest in litigation fruits cannot justify impleading a party. The petitioner creditor was neither necessary nor proper party to the appeal, and appellants cannot be coerced to join unwanted parties unless legally compelled. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449876