In this case, Adjudicating Authority held that the Resolution Professional ought to have followed the method prescribed under sub-section 3A of Section 25A and come to a conclusion that since more than 50% of the voting has been done in favour of 12A proposal, he should have taken it as 100% since the Financial Creditor have to be treated as a class.
Hon’ble NCLAT holds that:
(i) The voting under sub-section (3A) which is to be cast by Authorised Representative is to be on the basis of vote of more than 50% of the voting share of the Financial Creditor in a class but the said provision of sub-section (3A) was subject to the proviso which proviso created a different voting pattern for 12A.
(ii) For computing voting with regard to 12A proposal, the voting has to be computed as per Section 25A (3A) proviso r/w Section 25A(3). As per Section 25A(3), if the authorised representative represents several financial creditors, then he shall cast his vote in respect of each financial creditor in accordance with instructions received from each financial creditor, to the extent of his voting share.
(iii) When the statute i.e. Section 12A provides 90% voting for approval of Section 12A proposal, 90% of the voting share of the creditor in class have to be taken into consideration.
(iv) Since voting by each homebuyers who represented creditor in class has to be computed as per his voting share and adding all vote shares of the creditor in class with any other Financial Creditor if it is at least up to 90% only then 12A proposal is held to be passed.
(v) The present is a case where the Resolution Professional is required to conduct the proceeding of the CoC according to the IBC and take a decision on the result of voting. There can be no question of Resolution Professional taking, in the present case, any sides. In so far as computation of votes is concerned, the Resolution Professional is required to compute the votes as per the statute. Hence, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regen Powertech Private Limited vs. Giriraj Enterprises & Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 111 SC which was in the facts of the said case cannot be said to be applicable in the present set of facts.