TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi) in CA No. 485 /ND/ 2019 filed in C.P. No. (IB)- 1059/ND/2018 by which an application filed by the Resolution Professional (in short 'RP') under Sections 30(6) and 31(1) of the Code r/w Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (in short 'Regulations') seeking approval of the resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicants (in short 'SRA") i.e. Surender Kumar Singhal and Sunil Kumar Agarwal, approved by the Committee of Creditors (in short 'CoC') in its 6th meeting held on 09.10.2019, has been allowed. 2. In brief, M/s Concord Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) filed an application i.e. C.P. No. (IB)-1059/ND/2018 under Section 9 of the Code against M/s Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) which was admitted on 26.11.2018. 3. The Corporate Debtor is in the business of real estate construction and development. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) leased out a plot no. GH-02A, Sector 01, Greator Noida, admeasuring 32,296 sq. mts. vide lease deed dated 04.04.2011 to the Cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under:- S. No. Prospective Resolution applicant Type of Industry Date of submission 1. Consortium - Executive of Association of Homebuyer Homebuyers 04.08.2019 2. Sunder Kumar Singhal & Sunil Kumar Agarwal Real Estate Sector 02.08.2019 3. Mahaluxmi Buildtech Limited Real Estate Developer 04.08.2019 12. However, the resolution plan of two PRAs was received i.e. Consortium-Executives of Association of Home Buyers and Surender Kumar Singhal and Sunil Kumar Agarwal on the last date for submission of the resolution plan. The plan was circulated amongst the authorised representative, the homebuyers and CoC members which was discussed in the 6th CoC meeting held on 09.10.2019. The CoC declared Surender Kumar Singhal and Sunil Kumar Agarwal as the highest bidder (H1) and also decided to amend the clause relating to the performance security from Rs. 5 Cr. to Rs. 30 Cr. 13. The resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant was approved by the CoC with an affirmative voting percentage of 87.60%. The details of the dissenting financial creditors alongwith the liquidation value is as under : - Liquidation Value for Dissent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been filed by two set of similarly named Welfare Association of the homebuyers, without mentioning in the memo of appeal, as to how many members are in their association who have preferred this appeal nor annexing the list of the members with the appeal as well. 18. Be that as it may, the Respondent No. 1 at the outset, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present appeal alleging that as per Section 61 of the Code, the appeal can be filed only by an aggrieved person and the Appellants do not fall within the category of aggrieved person because the minority homebuyers have to necessarily flow the majority within the class. This objection has also been taken as a preliminary objection in the reply and in support, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in the cases of Japee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. (Supra) and Bipin Sharma Vs. Earth Infrastructure Ltd., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 916 of 2021 and Piya Puri & Ors. Vs. Debashish Nanda & Ors., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 906 of 2022 in which the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaypee (Supra) has been followed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the stand taken in the grounds of appeal but he could not refer to any evidence on record as to how many members are in the Appellant Association as nothing has been mentioned in the grounds of appeal. He also could not cite any judgment to the contrary relied upon by the Respondents i.e. Jaypee (Supra), Bipin Sharma (Supra) and Piya Puri (Supra) in which it has been consistently held that "dissatisfied homebuyers and associations are not entitled to put up any challenge to the resolution plan contrary to the decision of the requisite majority of their class, all their objections are required to be rejected outright". The relevant para in the case of Jaypee (Supra) is 170 which is reproduced as under:- "170. To sum up this part of discussion, in our view, after approval of the resolution plan of NBCC by CoC, where homebuyers as a class assented to the plan, any individual homebuyers or association cannot maintain any challenge to the resolution plan nor could be treated as carrying any legal grievance." 22. In the case of Bipin Sharma (Supra), this Court has held as under:- "9. We note that section 25-A of IBC provides a mechanism for participation of the Aut....