Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 14 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHICompetence of maintaining the appeal by the present appellants - Seeking approval of the resolution plan submitted by Successful Resolution Applicants - homebuyers as a class assented to the plans - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact, the tripartite agreement was challenged as void but the said application was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority against which the RP filed the appeal before this Tribunal which was dismissed on 05.01.2022 holding that the RP had no locus to file the application. It was further held that the transfer of portion of plot by sub-lease was effected on 27.09.2016 whereas CIRP was initiated after more than two years i.e on 26.11.2018. It was further held that the RP has no ground to doubt the transaction which is more than two years prior to commencement of CIRP. The association did not raise any plea of fraud in transferring the plot by sub-lease and the RP failed to make out a case that the sub-lease was executed for depriving the rights of homebuyers. Also in the case of Piya Puri [2022 (8) TMI 1111 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI] the same view has been taken while discussing Section 25A of the Code and Regulation 16-A(9) of the Regulations. It has been held that where the majority (more than 50%) have voted in favour of the resolution plan approving the same, the dissenting homebuyers who are in minority have to go alongwith the views of the majority and are not entitled to prefer the appeal. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court coupled with the fact that the homebuyers as a class through authorised representative have voted to the extent 87.60% approving the resolution plan, the other homebuyers who are in minority have to follow the decision of the majority and cannot challenge the resolution plan in appeal as they do not fall within the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ and thus, the appeal at their instance is not maintainable. There is a merit in the objection raised by the Respondent and hence, the appeal at the instance of the present appellants is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.
|