TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench dated 24.01.2025, 28.01.2025 and 12.02.2025, respectively. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.442 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order dated 24.01.2025 in IA No. 22/MB/2025 filed by the Appellant under Section 43 of the I&B Code. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 rejected the application. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.474 of 2025 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 28.01.2025 in IA No. 24/MB/2025 filed by the Appellant seeking rejection of resolution plan of La Mer Developers Limited in consortium with Neel Builders and Developers and certain other reliefs. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application by the impugned order. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.559 of 2025 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the NCLT Mumbai Court IV in IA (IBC)(Plan)/102(MB)2024. Appellant aggrieved of the said orders has come up in these appeals. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding these appeals are: (i) On an application filed by one Santosh Ananda Shetty and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aggrieved of the aforesaid three orders has filed these appeals. 3. We have heard Shri Dinkar Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the SRA. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission contended that approval of resolution plan of La Mer Developers Limited and Neel Builders & Developers is vitiated by procedural impropriety, non- compliance of statutory provisions, fraudulent conduct and collusion between the Resolution Professional and Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). Allegations has been made against the Resolution Professional who is alleged to have been acting in collusion with SRA. Allegations have been made against one Bipin Kabra, homebuyer. It is contended that there are significant violations of the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP). It is submitted that the Resolution Plan is fundamentally flawed and is liable to be set aside. There is improper approval of ineligible SRA. Shri Bipin Kabra actively influenced the process in favour of SRA. The NCLT has made observations against the AR and the Resolution Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025 notices the prayers made in the application, which are as follows: "1.1 This IA (I.B.C) No.269/MB/2025 has been filed on 27.11.2024 by Mr. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Ors., under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 praying for quashing the condition of Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP) prohibiting modification and amendment of plan, declaring the successful resolution plan of La Mer Developers Limited in consortium with Neel Builders and Developers (Respondent No.3) as null and void, replacing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with other suitable persons from their respective roles as Resolution Professional (RP) and Authorised Representative (AR) respectively and directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the video and Zoom meeting recordings of the meeting held on 29.09.2024 and the e-voting details with respect to approval of the resolution plan." 8. The Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and has noted that all the Applicants including Ramprasad Vishvanath Gupta has only 2.14% vote share. It was also noticed by the Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on plan has been voted upon and has found favour with the majority of homebuyers representing more than 51% of the voting share, all creditors in the particular class are necessarily bound by the decision of the majority and cannot maintain any claim against such decision. This principle is also well-established in the following words: "164.4...There is absolutely no scope for any particular person standing within that class to suggest any dissention as regards the vote over the resolution plan. It is obvious that if this finality and binding force is not provided to the vote cast by the authorised representative over the resolution plan in accordance with the majority decision of the class he is authorised to represent, a plan of resolution involving large number of parties (like an excessively large number of homebuyers herein) may never fructify and the only result would be liquidation which is not the prime target of the Code." 4.5 It is an undisputed fact that the Applicants in the present case by virtue of being members of class of creditors/homebuyers were represented on the CoC through Respondent No.2 who had participated in the course of the CIRP process.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order has rejected the application holding that under Section 43 Appellant has no authority to file an application. With aforesaid observation application was rejected and a cost of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the Appellant. It is useful to extract Para 4.4 of the order: "4.4 We are of the considered view that the Applicant has filed the present Application in a frivolous manner without having any legal authority or any independent or plausible cause of action to do so under Section 43 of the Code. A plain reading of Section 43 of the Code makes it amply clear that an application under that Section can only be filed by an Insolvency Professional while acting as a Resolution Professional or Liquidator and none else. The Applicant seems to be an educated person who argued his case in person on the first date of hearing. There is absolutely no confusion in the language employed by the legislature in Section 43. Further, he has approached this tribunal based on hearsay information and without personal verification of the allegations he levelled against the professionals appointed by the Bench and also against third parties. In view of the above, we are of the considered o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to restart the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. It is noticed from the record that the Resolution Plan of Respondent No.2 has already been approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom and had received 83.46% of the voting share. The RP/Respondent No.1 has filed IA No.102/2024 before this Tribunal for approval of the said Resolution Plan which has already been heard in part. 4.3 In these circumstances, the preliminary issue for consideration is whether the Applicant being just one homebuyer out of about 600 homebuyers and re- settlors has the locus standi to approach this Tribunal in his individual capacity. It is settled law that homebuyers of corporate debtor fall in a class of financial creditors and constitute a class of creditors different and distinct from other financial creditors. Individual homebuyers may have divergent views but ultimately they vote as a class and individual homebuyers cannot claim to be 'dissenting homebuyers'. Thus, we find that the Applicant being part of class of homebuyers, majority of whom have already voted in favour of the resolution plan of Respondent No.2, has no independent locus standi to raise objections with regard to the manne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plan to the AA. The AA Is then required to satisfy itself that the resolution plan, as approved by the CoC, meets the requirements specified in Section 30(2). The law is now settled that the role of the AA is no more and no less than the above. The role of the AA with respect to a resolution plan is limited to matters specified in Section 30(2) of the IBC. Further, the AA is not required to interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC. 11.4 We find that the Plan meets the requirements under Section 30(2) of the IBC and that it is not in violation of provisions of any law for the time being in force. Further, in Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. Vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd & Anr., [Civil Appeal Nos. 2943-2944 of 2019], the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the commercial wisdom of CoC must be adhered to unless the adjudicating authority is satisfied that the requirement of Section 30(2) has not been complied with. 11.5 In the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8766- 67 of 20191, the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that the Adjudicating Authority would....