TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble Supreme Court of India has also categorically mentioned giving liberty to Wishtown Home Buyers Welfare Society that the said entity is at liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with the law - The Counsel Mr. Lahot has stated that he would supply the list of the home buyers. However, list has not even been mentioned in these objections, the question of granting any permission to provide list after passing this order will not arise. Objections rejected. - (IB)-77/ALD/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2020 - B.S.V. Prakash Kumar, Actg. President and Sumita Purkayastha, Member (T) For the Appellant : M.L. Lahoty, Advocate For the Respondents : Sumant Batra, Niharika Sharma and Anuj Jain, Advocates ORDER B.S.V. Prakash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates that he is representing 1500 home buyers of real estate projects, but whereas RP has categorically mentioned that only 448 home buyers voted against the plan. Therefore, it could not be assumed that 1500 home buyers authorized him to file these objections before this Bench. If really those 448 have given authority, that number should be 448, even if assumed that remaining members are JAL members, then also it is the bounden duty of this objector to mention the names of the dissenting creditors of JIL. This person, signatory of the affidavit should have included some other homebuyers in these objections. Moreover, wishtown project is the part of JIL. When it has been put to the counsel, who is not aware of this situation, he has agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, if any issue arises in reference to the approved plan, the applicant(s) are free to raise the same before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). That be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. He has also referred an order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Interlocutory application 3088 of 2020 filed by Wishtown Home Buyers Welfare Society, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: We are not inclined to entertain this application. The application for intervention is accordingly dismissed. However, if the applicant petitioner has any other remedy he is free to pursue the same in accordance with the law. On showing these two orders, the Counsel states that he may be allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
