TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Court VI, New Delhi by which Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024 filed by the Appellant, in CP IB- 682/PB/2021 has been rejected. Appellant aggrieved by the order rejecting the Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024 has come up in this Appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:- 2.1. On 12.10.2021, Company Petition being CP IB- 682/PB/2021 was filed by the homebuyers of Festival City Project launched by the Corporate Debtors. The Financial Creditors 215 in numbers filed Section 7 application alleging default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in completing the project and giving possession to the financial creditors. In the application, M/s. Anand Infoedge Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as Corporate Debtor No. 1 who was a land owing company, M/s. Mist Avenue Pvt. Ltd. as Corporate Debtor No.2 was developer and M/s. Mist Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd. as Corporate Debtor No.3 was another developer after cancelling the earlier Development Agreement. Section 7 application was filed on 12.10.2021 by the Financial Creditors i.e. homebuyers. In Section 7 application filed by the financial cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oresaid proceedings, two IAs have been filed before the Adjudicating Authority seeking Intervention Petition No. 11 of 2024 and Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024. Intervention Petition No.11 of 2024 was filed by applicant who had earlier filed an IA No.3875 of 2023 seeking dismissal of the main Company Petition which was already dismissed. Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024 was filed by present Appellant claiming that they are holding 102 units in Festival City Project and they sought intervention in the Company Petition. Intervention Petition No. 12 of 2024 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.02.2024, aggrieved against which order this appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard Shri Anupam Lal Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant, Shri Sahil Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, Shri Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.6- Mist Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd., Shri Gaurav Mitra, learned senior counsel has appeared for another set of homebuyers who have filed intervention petition 12 of 2024. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order contends that the Appellants are holders of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t applicants are creating obstructions in proceeding of Section 7 application by filing different frivolous applications. It is, however, submitted that hearing in Section 7 application has already commenced by the Adjudicating Authority and 6th May was date fixed for completion of the arguments. It is further submitted that the Scheme which has been filed under Section 230 by the Respondent No.6 is also defective and the Adjudicating Authority by its order dated 05.04.2024 has noted various objections in the Scheme and directed M/s. Mist Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd. to clarify the same. The Scheme is not a valid scheme nor that can be reason for not proceeding with Section 7 proceeding. 6. Shri Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel appearing for applicant who has filed Section 230 Scheme submits that the consideration approval of the scheme shall be beneficial for all homebuyers since under the scheme the corporate debtor shall construct the project and deliver the homebuyers to all in real estate project. Admission of application under Section 7 is not the solution and the Section 7 application filed by the financial creditors need to await till the Scheme under Section 230 filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessary, this Court will enquire into both the merits and maintainability. However, we also clarify that the issue of maintainability shall stand concluded by the impugned order dated 17 November 2023 insofar as the National Company Law Tribunal and NCLAT is concerned. 3 Since the application under Section 7 is pending for over two years, we request the NCLT to take up the application at the earliest possible date and to endeavour an expeditious disposal within two months. 4 Subject to the aforesaid, the Civil Appeals are dismissed. 5 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of." 9. After the aforesaid order, applications were filed by several applicants claiming to be unit holders in the project praying for dismissal of the company petition which applications were filed by those applicants who have now filed Intervention Petition No.11 of 2024 also was dismissed by the impugned order. The application filed by unit holders being IA No. 3875 of 2023 was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on 25.07.2023. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has noticed the facts in paragraph 10 as well as the order dated 25.07.2023. It is useful to ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Adjudicating Authority CIRP is a process whereby the project will be taken up by a Successful Resolution Applicant who will be financially & managerially competent to run the project and will continue to do the work of the Corporate Debtor. Only that the Corporate Debtor will be replaced. The CIRP envisages the organization to work as a going concern. Therefore, the objection/apprehension raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is not sustainable in the eye of law. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has also raised another argument that after filing of present Section 7 application approximately 10 Petitioners have opted for settlement with the Corporate Debtor and walked out of the array of Petitioners. In terms of "Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India" judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the criteria that should be looked into by Adjudicating Authority is whether as on date of filing of the Section 7 petition, the Petitioners are able to master the support of minimum number of Applicants or not. Therefore, the argument advanced by the Counsel for the Applicants is not sustainable. At the outset it is clarified that few of the Petitioners at their own wisdom ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....even after the same has been held maintainable by the Hon'ble NCLAT vide order dated 17.11.2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.12.2023 has held that the issue of maintainability shall stand concluded by the order dated 17.11.2023 insofar as the Adjudicating Authority and NCLAT are concerned. The malafide intention of the Applicant to delay the adjudication of the Section 7 Petition is also evident from the fact that the Applicant never raised this contention of affidavits being forged during the adjudication of maintainability of the Section 7 Petition neither before this Adjudicating Authority nor before the Hon'ble NCLAT. 11. Further, prior to admission of Section 7 Application making attempts to seek dismissal of the application by the applicant is not a practice which in consonance with the provisions of IB Code, 2016 as well as the objects sought to be achieved by the said legislation. 12. From the prayers made at (a) to (g) in the application it transpires that the applicant is attempting to drag on the proceedings and build an approach to have a road-way for forum shopping, therefore, dismissed. the IA/5400/2023 is 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious objections were filed by the creditors and the Adjudicating Authority vide the order dated 23.11.2021 granted time to the corporate debtor to file reply which order was challenged in this Tribunal by filing an appeal by the corporate debtor. In the aforesaid appeal, this Tribunal considering the fact of the case had made following observations in paragraphs 15 and 21, which are as follows:- "15. The legislative intent which is clear by Section 424 (1) is that the Tribunal while disposing of any proceeding before it shall not be bound by procedure laid down by Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act or Code 2016 and any of the Rules made thereunder. Further, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have power to regulate their own procedure. The statutory scheme delineated by Chapter III-A of 'I&B Code' as well as the Regulations, 2021 as observed above does not indicate any prohibition on the Adjudicating Authority to hear any objector or intervener before admitting an Application of pre-packaged insolvency resolution process. When there is no prohibition in hearing an object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor/applicant to file reply to the objections filed by the various stakeholders. Relying on the said judgment, it is contended that the applicant who has filed intervention petition are also interested in the proceeding and should be allowed to intervene. Judgment of this Tribunal dated 21.12.2021 in "Krrish Realtech Private Limited" was on its own facts. The objectors appeared and objected the application that application has been filed contrary to the statutory provisions and objectors' objection be heard since the application has been malafidely and fraudulently filed to defeat the rights of the homebuyers who are financial creditors. 15. In the facts of the above case, this Tribunal held that the order of the Adjudicating Authority granting time to the corporate debtor to file reply to the objection cannot be faulted. The facts of the present case depict the entirely different story. As noted above, in Section 7 application which has been filed by 115 homebuyers, several attempts have been made by the corporate debtor and other applicants to get the petition dismissed and the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting such objection have been upheld upto the Suprem....