02/11/2023

In a real estate project, CoC in its commercial wisdom can take appropriate decision to satisfy the claim of class of creditors in a reasonable and fair manner and different treatment of two sets of Homebuyers in view of the allotment to Homebuyer with/without NOC of the mortgagee is justified – Sabari Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sivana Realty Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this landmark judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) Appellant, who is a dissatisfied minority, a single homebuyer has to sail alongwith the view of the majority in terms of the scheme of IBC.
(ii) Appellant as a class of homebuyers cannot be allowed to challenge the Resolution Plan which has received approval of class of homebuyers on the basis of majority of votes of homebuyers.
(iii) In a real estate project when the project spread into several units and several projects which are at different stages of construction the CoC in its commercial wisdom can take appropriate decision to satisfy the claim of class of creditors in a reasonable and fair manner.
(iv) Different treatment of two sets of homebuyers in view of the allotment to the homebuyer with/without NOC of the Mortgagee has rational for separate treatment
(v) Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, which has approved the Resolution Plan under which different treatment has been given to ‘Affected Homebuyers’ and ‘Unaffected Homebuyers’, cannot be faulted.

In a real estate project, CoC in its commercial wisdom can take appropriate decision to satisfy the claim of class of creditors in a reasonable and fair manner and different treatment of two sets of Homebuyers in view of the allotment to Homebuyer with/without NOC of the mortgagee is justified – Sabari Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sivana Realty Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be pressed in respect to a Resolution Plan under IBC – Fervent Synergies Ltd. Vs. Manish Jaju, RP – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, Appellant submitted that RP having accepted the claim with regard to 10 flats sold to the Appellant, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the said claim could not have been interfered with or reduced as has been done in the Resolution Plan.

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:
(i) The principle of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed against the Resolution Applicant, who submits Resolution Plan on the basis of relying on the Information Memorandum, the list of creditors and other aspect of the matter.
(ii) The Resolution Applicant has not extended any promise to the Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor that the claim submitted by Financial Creditor or any other creditor shall be accepted in toto.
(iii) If a Resolution Plan is compliant with the provision of Section 30, sub-section (2) of the IBC and the provisions of the Regulations, 2016, the Plan cannot be faulted on the ground of the promissory estoppel, which the Appellant is pressing against the Resolution Professional, who has admitted the claim.
(iv) The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed into service in reference to the Resolution Plan, which has been submitted by a Resolution Applicant and approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom.

Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be pressed in respect to a Resolution Plan under IBC – Fervent Synergies Ltd. Vs. Manish Jaju, RP – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top