9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1578 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyDirection to RP to register sale-deeds for all sale-agreements in respect of unsold plots held by RH LLP as has been done for home buyers who purchased plots prior to the debenture investment by RMF - direction to Resolution Professional to provide for a settlement prior to entering into any construction agreement on the same plots; for release of its rights on the plots - HELD THAT - It is the cardinal principle of law that whenever a party challenging the claim of the other party it is necessary to implead them as opposite party. In the instant case while making several allegations in respect of the claim accepted by the Resolution Professional which is admitted and accepted by the CoC in relation to Reliance Nippon Life Asset Management Ltd. as stated supra they are not made party to the instant Application and only IRP is made party Respondent. Moreover a claim can be proved basing on the evidence available in support of it and it cannot depend on the claim made by the other party. However the Applicant is comparing its claim with reference to claim accepted by the Resolution Professional in respect of Financial Creditor. The prospective Resolution Applicant has already given ample opportunity to the Applicant with regard to its grievances and it was duly considered while finalising the Resolution Plan in question. The Resolution Professional has also filed application for approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 60(5) (c) R/w Section 30(6) of the IBC 2016. Therefore the Adjudicating Authority after analysing the entire Resolution Plan in the light of the settled position of law and object of code and in the interest of substantial stake holders in the Company has approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Citrus Ventures Private Limited by separate order dated 09.08.2019 by inter alia declaring that the Resolution Plan was binding on all the respective parties. Applicant was given due opportunity with regard to its grievances and the same was considered in transparent manner vis a vis other similarly situated parties - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Registration of sale-deeds for unsold plots. 2. Settlement of rights on the plots. 3. Reconsideration of the Resolution Plan. 4. Disclosure of PMS investors and their claims. 5. Allegations of usurious claims by PMS investors. 6. Discrimination against the Applicant in the Resolution Plan. 7. Approval process of the Resolution Plan. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Registration of Sale-Deeds for Unsold Plots: The Applicant sought directions for the Resolution Professional (RP) to register sale-deeds for all sale-agreements in respect of unsold plots held by RH LLP, similar to home buyers who purchased plots before the debenture investment by RMF. Alternatively, the Applicant requested a settlement at Rs. 2,624 per sq. ft. or the release of its rights on the plots. 2. Settlement of Rights on the Plots: The Applicant also sought a directive for the RP to reconsider the Resolution Plan to incorporate the above aspects. The RP, however, contended that the Applicant failed to substantiate its claims and omitted necessary parties, indicating that the Application was not filed with bona fide intentions. 3. Reconsideration of the Resolution Plan: The Applicant alleged that the Resolution Plan was biased and discriminatory, favoring certain financial creditors over others, including the Applicant. The RP maintained that the Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with the requisite majority and was in accordance with the law. 4. Disclosure of PMS Investors and Their Claims: The Applicant argued that the RP did not disclose the identities and amounts due to individual PMS investors, which was against Regulation 13(2) of CIRP Regulations. The RP countered that it was not required to furnish calculation details of one creditor's claims to another and that the Applicant had not requested such details. 5. Allegations of Usurious Claims by PMS Investors: The Applicant contended that the claims by PMS investors were usurious and extortionate, contravening the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, and Karnataka Money-Lending Act. The RP, however, stated that the claims were verified and admitted in accordance with the Code and CIRP Regulations. 6. Discrimination Against the Applicant in the Resolution Plan: The Applicant claimed that the Resolution Plan abruptly changed its status to an investment agreement holder, reducing its claim from Rs. 6 crores to Rs. 2 crores, while other financial creditors were not subjected to such changes. The RP argued that the Applicant's grievances were considered and discussed in CoC meetings, and the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with a majority vote. 7. Approval Process of the Resolution Plan: The RP emphasized that the Resolution Plan was finalized after due discussions and deliberations among CoC members and prospective Resolution Applicants. The RP maintained transparency and provided due opportunity for negotiation and redressal of concerns. The Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and subsequently by the Adjudicating Authority. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was given due opportunity to address its grievances, which were considered in a transparent manner. The Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant's claims and rejected the Application.
|
