Shalini & Anr. vs M/s Shubhkamna Buildtech Private Limited & Anr.

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

The present appeal have been filed by 2 Appellants i.e. Shalini and Ranjan Singh under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") against the Impugned Order passed in M.A No.391 of 2019 in CP (IB) No. 1059/ND/2018 by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, (“Adjudicating Authority”) on 22.12.2020.

M/S Shubkamna Buildtech Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) through its Resolution Professional Mr.Anand Sonbhadra is the Respondent No.1 herein. M/S Concord Infrastructure Private Limited (Operational Creditor) is the Respondent No.2 herein.

The Appellants submitted that both of them are homebuyers who have invested their savings in projects launched by Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1, as the Resolution Professional for Shubhkamna Buildtech, a real estate developer, was engaged in the construction of two group housing projects in Noida and Greater Noida. These projects include "Shubhkamna Techomes," comprising 722 flats located at Plot No. GH-05B, Sector-137, Noida, and "Shubhkamna City," comprising 1,139 flats spread over 33,538 square meters at Plot No. GH-02A, Sector-1, Greater Noida. The Appellants assert that their

substantial investments in these projects remain unfulfilled due to delays and unresolved issues.

The Appellants submitted that the "Shubhkamna City" project in Greater Noida comprises five towers, with structural construction nearly complete and plastering finalized in some towers, pending finishing work. These towers contain 600 flats, all sold by Respondent No. 1, which collected approximately 70% of the total consideration from homebuyers, including their proportionate share of land costs. Despite this, development has been stalled for four years due to Respondent No. 1’s financial mismanagement and misappropriation of funds, as evidenced by the Noida Authority’s recovery notice of Rs. 78.23 crore for unpaid dues.

The Appellants submitted that the main insolvency proceeding (IB No. 1059/2018) was initiated by an Operational Creditor, a contractor in the "Shubhkamna City" project, who claimed a debt of Rs. 2.71 Crores based on an agreement dated 28.02.2018. The Appellants submitted that this Appellate Tribunal passed an order on 26.11.2018, admitting the application filed by the Operational Creditor and appointing an Interim Resolution Professional.

The Appellants submitted that the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IB No. 1059/2018 was challenged vide Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 471/2019, however this Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated 03.09.2019, disposed of the Appellant’s appeal with the following observations:

The Appellants submitted that, following the order passed this Appellate Tribunal, they filed an application, MA No. 391/2019 in C.P No. IN-1059/ND/2018 seeking impleadment to safeguard their interests and to participate in the resolution process, including its voting. The Appellant submitted that since the filing of the application, significant developments occurred. Mr. Anand Sonbhadra had been appointed as the Resolution Professional, who conducted multiple meetings of the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’), passed resolutions through voting, and eventually secured CoC approval for the Final Resolution Plan. Subsequently, the Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 30(6) of the Code, seeking approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellants filed their objections to this resolution plan to ensure their interests as homebuyers are adequately protected and addressed in the resolution process.

The Appellants submitted that the Application No. 391/2019 was limited to specific prayers, namely:

Directing the Resolution Professional to follow the observations made by this Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 03.09.2019.

Directing the Resolution Professional to provide voting shares along with voter identification to ensure transparency in the resolution process.

Directing the Resolution Professional to restore the voting rights of the flat buyers, including Applicants No. 4 and 5.

The Appellants submitted that as far as prayer (b) is concerned, it has not been followed either in letter or spirit by the CoC, while approving the resolution plan, acted contrary to this Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 03.09.2019 by failing to consider the interests of flat buyers, including the terms of agreements reached with the Corporate Debtor.

The Appellants submitted that, with respect to prayers (d) and (e) in Application No. 391/2019 regarding voting rights, the Resolution Professional has violated legal principles by failing to disclose the voting shares of the two groups of flat buyers, namely "Shubhkamna City" and "Shubhkamna Techomes."

The Appellant submitted that the Resolution Professional, through certain office bearers of flat buyers' associations, actively campaigned for a "yes" vote for the resolution plan. The Appellants and other flat buyers remain in complete darkness regarding their votes in the "Shubhkamna City" project, as no information about their voting shares was ever provided. The Appellants further submitted that several individuals who had voted against earlier resolutions were arbitrarily

removed from the voting list without any basis or prior notice, including Applicants No. 4 and 5 (now Appellants).

The Appellants submitted that Respondents No. 4 and 5 had provided all necessary documents related to their flats to the IRP, including receipts, allotment letters, and Builder Buyer Agreements (‘BBA’). These documents were sent via email on 11.12.2018 to the IRP at the email address [email protected].

The Appellants further submitted that these documents pertain to September 2018, but the Resolution Professional has deliberately produced cash records only for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013 to falsely demonstrate that the claims of Applicants No. 4 and 5 are not supported. It is submitted that the Resolution Professional, with mala fide intentions, has intentionally withheld records from 2018 to unjustly deny the claims of the Applicants.

The Appellants submitted that the present Operational Creditor's claims pertain specifically to the work performed in the "Shubhkamna City" project. Therefore, the Resolution Plan should have been formulated exclusively for that project. The Appellants rely on the judgment dated 04.02.2020 passed by this Appellate Tribunal in Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills-77, Gurgaon vs. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd., passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 926 of 2019, which categorically held that in cases involving real estate and infrastructure companies, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) must be conducted on a project-wise basis and cannot involve other unrelated projects. The Appellants submitted that merging multiple projects into a single

resolution process is contrary to this principle and prejudices the interests of homebuyers in individual projects like "Shubhkamna City."

The Appellants submitted that in the present case, two distinct projects were improperly merged for the purpose of maximizing assets, despite the fact that both projects had separate approvals from different authorities, distinct allottees, creditors, and financial institutions. The Appellants contend that this merger was done with the ulterior motive of ensuring that if flat buyers from one project overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Resolution Plan, it would secure the passage of the plan for the other project as well. It is submitted that approximately 57% of combined voters supported the Resolution Plan, and this combined voting mechanism ensured that both projects were passed together, thereby undermining the individual interests of homebuyers and creditors associated with each project.

The Appellants submitted that the disclosure of voting by different sets of flat buyers is crucial for this Appellate Tribunal to determine the issues at hand, particularly whether voting and the CIRP should be conducted on a project-wise basis, as per the judgment in Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills-77, Gurgaon (Supra). It is the case of the Appellant that such disclosure will also clarify why certain voters, especially those who opposed the Resolution Plan, were deliberately excluded from the voting process. The Appellants further submitted that transparency in voting is essential to ensure fairness and compliance with legal principles.

The Appellants submitted that this Appellate Tribunal, vide its order in CP No. IN-1059/ND/2018 dated 22.12.2020, dismissed their application with the following observations:

The Resolution Plan had already been discussed, analysed, and approved by the CoC and was pending consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Applicants, including Appellants herein, held only a minuscule voting share of approximately 1% in the CoC, while the Resolution Plan was approved with over 87% voting share.

The claims of Applicants No. 4 and 5 were not reflected in the Corporate Debtor’s Books of Account and had already been rejected by the Resolution Professional.

The Resolution Plan could not be provided to the Applicants as it had already been approved by the CoC and was pending before the Adjudicating Authority for approval. Furthermore, the Applicants had already filed I.A No. 1718 of 2020 challenging the said Resolution Plan.

The Appellants submitted that these observations highlight procedural irregularities and emphasize their limited ability to influence decisions due to their small voting share, despite their legitimate claims being overlooked. The Appellant reiterated their objections to the Resolution Plan and requested for appropriate reliefs from this Appellate Tribunal.

The Appellants submitted that they are aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 22.12.2020, which not only rejected their

application seeking the restoration of voting rights for flat buyers but also included observations indicating that the claims filed by Applicants No. 4 and 5 (the Appellants) were based on cash receipts that were not reflected in the cash register of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellants contend that this dismissal undermines their legitimate claims and rights as flat buyers, and they seek to challenge the findings made in this order to ensure their interests are adequately represented and protected.

The Appellants submitted that the Corporate Debtor has failed to provide any books of account or cash registers beyond the year 2013-14 and further submitted that the Corporate Debtor either does not possess the cash registers for the years 2015 through 2018, during which period the Applicants entered into Builder Buyer Agreements, received allotment letters, and were issued receipts for cash payments made. The Appellants submitted that the non-availability of the Corporate Debtor's cash register or accounts for the period from 2015 to 2018 cannot be construed as evidence of non-payment by the Appellants. The Appellants further submitted that neither the Corporate Debtor nor the Resolution Professional has alleged that these documents are fabricated or invalid. Moreover, the Resolution Professional, in an email dated 14.06.2019, acknowledged the non-availability of relevant records, further validating the Appellants' claims.

The Appellants submitted that the issue of cash register entries can only be clarified if the Resolution Professional gains access to the relevant registers or if such records are provided by the former directors, representatives, accounts

department, or officers of the Corporate Debtor. However, in the present case, the former directors of the Corporate Debtor are absconding, and the Resolution Professional has made no inquiry from any source regarding the status of allotment of flats to the Appellants.

The Appellants submitted that the rejection of their claims cannot be based solely on the absence of entries in the cash register, especially when the Resolution Professional does not possess these registers and has not sought clarification from the Corporate Debtor's directors or officers about the allotment status. The Appellants emphasized that they hold valid Builder Buyer Agreements, allotment letters, and receipts as evidence of their claims.

The Appellants submitted that the Adjudicating Authority erred in denying their prayer on the grounds that the Applicants, including the Appellants herein, hold only a minuscule voting share of approximately 1% of the total CoC. The Appellants contend that their rights should not be rejected solely based on their voting share, as this does not diminish their legitimate claims or affect the passing of resolutions by the CoC. The Appellants emphasized that every stakeholder's rights must be considered and upheld, regardless of their voting percentage, to ensure fairness and justice in the resolution process.

The Appellants submitted that the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting their application on the ground that the claims of Applicants No. 4 and 5 (now Appellants) were not reflected in the Books of Account and had already

been rejected by the Resolution Professional. The Appellants contended that this is not a valid ground to deny their voting rights.

Concluding their arguments, the Appellants urged this Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the Impugned Order and allow their appeal.

Per Contra, the Respondent No. 1 denied all the averments made by the Appellant in the present appeal.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Corporate Debtor, incorporated on December 08, 2006 under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the real estate business with its registered office located at 197-E, Pocket-IV, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi. At the time of initiation of the CIRP, the Corporate Debtor had two ongoing real estate projects: (i) Shubhkamna Techomes Project situated at Plot GH 05B, Sector-137, Noida; and (ii) Shubhkamna City Project situated at Plot GH02A, Sector-1, Greater Noida West.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that Regulation 12 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Debtor), 2016 (“CIRP Regulations, 2016”) mandates that every creditor shall submit proof of its claim to the Interim Resolution Professional, which includes providing relevant documents. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the he had provisionally admitted the claim of the Appellants based on the available documents provided by the Appellants and had informed regarding the provisional admission of the claim to the Appellants vide email dated 14.06.2019. It is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that he further conducted a thorough

examination of the documents furnished by the Appellants, and reasonably concluded that the cash receipts relied upon by the Appellant to substantiate its claim are not reflected in the cash register of the Corporate Debtor and observed that the name of the Appellants were not reflecting in the list of homebuyers who had made allegedly the payment in the cash form to the Corporate Debtor. In the absence of any proof of the said cash receipts, the Respondent No. 1 was entitled not to verify the Appellant's claim.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that following the publication of the public announcement in Form A by the IRP, the CoC was constituted based on the claims received from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor. The first meeting of the CoC was conducted by the IRP on 07.02.2019, and during the meeting, the CoC decided to replace the then IRP with the Applicant as the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, and this decision was subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority through an order dated 12.02.2019.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the second meeting of the CoC was held on 11.03.2019 and the focus of the meeting was on the preparation of the Information Memorandum, the handover of relevant documents from the Interim Resolution Professional to the Resolution Professional and the appointment of Registered Valuers and forensic auditors. Further, resolutions regarding the approval of the bid evaluation matrix, Form G, eligibility criteria, and the appointment of the forensic auditor and registered valuers were put to vote during the meeting.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that following the second CoC meeting, a Form-G was published on 23.03.2019 and Resolution Professional also uploaded the Form-G on the IPE website to attract prospective resolution applicants, with 22.04.2019, being the last date for submission of Expressions of Interest (‘EoI’). In response to this publication, seven EoIs, along with the required documents, were received by the Resolution Professional . However, after reviewing the documents and profiles of the applicants, the Resolution Professional was not satisfied with their credentials and seriousness. As a result, the Resolution Professional proposed in the third CoC meeting that the submission of EoIs be reissued, providing a seven-day extension for applicants to submit their EoIs.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the fourth meeting of the CoC was held on July 29, 2019, during which the Resolution Professional discussed several key matters with the CoC, including the opening of the Corporate Debtor's current account, the re-publication of Form-G on June 9, 2019, and the approval for exclusion of time from the CIRP period.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Form-G dated 31.07.2019, was published and subsequently, several prospective Resolution Applicants expressed their interest, and as a result, the Request For Resolution Plan (‘RFRP’) was sent to these prospective applicants. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that, as per the process, the Resolution Professional received Resolution Plans from two prospective Resolution Applicants by the deadline of 10.08.2019. These

applicants were the Consortium - Executives of the Association of Home Buyers, and Sunder Kumar Singhal & Sunil Kumar Agarwal. Following this, the Resolution Plans were opened during the fifth CoC meeting, where the key aspects of the respective plans were discussed. A comparative note highlighting the key points of these two Resolution Plans was subsequently circulated among the Authorized Representative, homebuyers, and other CoC members for further review.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Resolution Professional carefully deliberated on the Resolution Plans received from the two applicants and undertook a process to ensure that these plans were in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the RFRP published on 07.08.2019. However, due to ongoing litigation concerning the status of NOIDA authority as a financial creditor or operational creditor, a stay was granted by the Adjudicating Authority from August 6 to August 21, and subsequently, a stay on voting was imposed pending the order in the NOIDA application until September 30. Thereafter, on 09.10.2019, the Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC with a voting percentage of 87.57% the total voting share including 66.70%, pertaining to the homebuyers (creditors in a class), voted in favor of the Resolution Plan.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that, following the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, the Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 31 of the Code on October 23, 2019, seeking approval of the Resolution Plan from the Adjudicating Authority, which was approved by the

Adjudicating Authority on 12.09.2022 in CA No. 485/ND/2019 which was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 12.09.2022.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the claim filed by the Applicants were entirely unsupported by any evidence, which was the reason it was not accepted. The Respondent No. 1 stated that the claims submitted by the Appellants were based on alleged cash receipts that were not reflected in the Corporate Debtor's cash register. Therefore, in the absence of proper proof provided by the Appellants, it was not possible to include the Appellants as part of the CoC.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Appellants’ reference to the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal on September 3, 2019, claiming that relief was granted to them, is misleading. In reality, no such relief was granted, and the only liberty provided to the Appellants was the right to challenge the Resolution Plan.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorized Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., [2019 SCC Online SC 1478] affirmed that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC, no claims can be accepted to avoid situation akin to a 'hydra head popping,' which would create uncertainty regarding the amounts payable by resolution applicant who successfully takes over the business of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that this decision rendered in Essar Steel (Supra) was followed by this Appellate Tribunal in the matter of JSW Steel Ltd. v. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Ors., passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 957 of 2019 where it was held that a successful

Resolution Applicant cannot be required to face undecided claims after the Resolution Plan has been submitted by them and accepted by the CoC.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that in the case decided by this Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Office of the Assistant State Tax Commissioner v. Sh. Parthiv Parikh & Ors., passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 583 of 2020 decided on 26.03.2021 in which it was held that:

indefinite period of time, which is certainly not the intention of IBC. A real hazard in such an event could be liquidation, and corporate death, of an otherwise functional and corporate debtor, with which Resolution Plan approved is set to come out of the Red." (Emphasis Supplied)

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Appellants were clearly informed and apprised of the Respondent No.1 inability to admit their claim through emails, in which the Respondent No.1 explicitly requested them to provide the relevant documents to support their claim. However, the Appellants failed to furnish the necessary documents.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Appellants lack legitimacy as homebuyers of the Corporate Debtor. Based on the records available with Respondent No. 1, no credible basis exists to substantiate the claim form submitted by the Appellants against the Corporate Debtor, hence the Appellants are not homebuyers entitled to participate in the insolvency process.

The Respondent No. 1 denied that the Appellants are parties to the tripartite arrangement involving the Corporate Debtor, the Operational Creditor, and the Shubhkamna City Welfare Association. Furthermore, the members of the Shubhkamna City Welfare Association have passed a resolution unequivocally expressing their support and confidence in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of the ongoing proceedings exclusive of the Appellants.

The Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the Resolution Professional has scrupulously adhered to all legal principles and furnished every requisite document as mandated under the CIRP Regulations. The claims advanced by the Appellants lacks any substantiating proof, rendering it untenable and justifiably rejected by Respondent No. 1 as the Appellants’ claim rests on cash receipts absent from the Corporate Debtor’s cash register, underscoring its evidentiary deficiency.

The Respondent No. 1 denied that the voting share and vote identification were not furnished to the Adjudicating Authority in the Resolution Plan approval application and further denied that the Appellants were removed from the CoC post-verification of their claims, as no such removal occurred following due scrutiny.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that an application under Section 19(2) of the Code was duly filed before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking cooperation from the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor to procure all relevant records. Despite this, the ex-promoters have failed to provide any books, records, bank account details, agreements, registers, or electronic storage devices. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 and its team have reconstructed the data and accounts, relying on information sourced from public domains, erstwhile auditors, tax consultants, homebuyers, creditors, and available bank statements of known accounts.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that a meticulous examination of the documents tendered by the Appellants was undertaken, leading to the reasoned conclusion that the cash receipts relied upon by the Appellants to substantiate their claim find no reflection in the Corporate Debtor’s cash register. The Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the Appellants’ names were conspicuously absent from the list of homebuyers who effected such alleged cash payments to the Corporate Debtor. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 that concrete evidence establishing the authenticity and genuineness of the said cash receipts claimed by the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 was duty bound to deny the Appellants’ claim, in accordance to the Code and the relevant regulations.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the 6^th CoC meeting, convened on 09.10.2019 by the Respondent No. 1, considered the Resolution Plan submitted by the Consortium of Executive of Association of Home Buyers, Mr. Surender Kumar Singhal, and Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal. The said plan was put to vote and duly approved by the CoC with an affirmative vote of 87.60%, thereby designating the consortium as the Successful Resolution Applicant for the Corporate Debtor. Respondent No. 1 further submitted that, pursuant thereto, an application bearing C.A. No. 485/ND/2019 was filed under Section 30(6) read with Section 31(1) of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority, seeking approval of the SRA’s Resolution Plan, who vide its order dated 12.09.2022 approved the said Resolution Plan.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a catena of judgments, has unequivocally held that once a Resolution Plan is approved, no further claims can be entertained, as such acceptance would tantamount to a “hydra head popping,” imperilling the certainty of amounts payable by the prospective Resolution Applicant tasked with reviving the Corporate Debtor’s business. This principle finds affirmation in Essar Steel (Supra) (Paragraphs 42 and 44), RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar & Anr., [(2023) SCC Online SC 1147] (Paragraphs 20-23), and Harish Polymer Product v. George Samuel & Anr., passed in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 420 of 2021 by this Appellate Tribunal read with Civil Appeal No. 6929 of 2021.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Resolution Plan Order dated 12.09.2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, stands reaffirmed by this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1347 of 2022, and in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1468 of 2022 where, this Appellate Tribunal had upheld the commercial wisdom of the CoC, declining to interfere with the approved Resolution Plan.

The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Impugned Order is legally sound and cogently reasoned. The Resolution Plan was thoroughly deliberated, evaluated, and approved by the CoC with an overwhelming majority exceeding 87% voting share, rendering the Appellant’s alleged negligible 1% voting share inconsequential to the outcome. Furthermore, the Adjudicating Authority upheld the Respondent No. 1’s rejection of the Appellants’ claims, noting their absence

from the Corporate Debtor’s cash register and prior rejection by the Resolution Professional.

Concluding his arguments, the Respondent No. 1 requested this Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the appeal with exemplary cost.

We note that the present appeal has been filed by the Appellants being aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 22.12.2020, where the Adjudicating Authority dismissed their application on the grounds that the Appellants held only a minuscule voting share of approximately 1% of the total CoC voting share and that the claims of Applicants No. 4 and 5 (now Appellants) were not reflected in the books of account and had already been rejected by the Resolution Professional. The Appellants contended that their claims were not considered, despite having valid Builder Buyer Agreements, allotment letters, and receipts.

We note that the Appellants have filed another appeal bearing Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 534 of 2021 which was also heard by us along with the present appeal. In Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 534 of 2021, the Appellant basically challenged the rejection of their claims by the Resolution Professional and the Adjudicating Authority. We have already heard and disposed of this appeal and the judgment of which is also being pronounced simultaneously with the present appeal in which we have rejected the appeal of the Appellants.

We have noted that the CoC had already approved the Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant and based on which the Respondent No. 1 moved an IA bearing CA No. 485/ND.2019 under Section 30(6) r/w Section 31(1) of the Code before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the Resolution Plan which has already been approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12.09.2022.

It is also pertinent to mention that the Respondent No. 1 submitted the Resolution Plan Order dated 12.09.2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, stands reaffirmed by this Appellate Tribunal in Merina Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Anand Sonbhadra, Resolution Professional for Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1347 of 2022 and Shubhkamna City Welfare Association & Anr. v. Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Through Resolution Professional & Anr., passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1468 of 2022. In these judgments, this Appellate Tribunal had already upheld the commercial wisdom of the CoC, declining to interfere with the approved Resolution Plan.

In view of above analysis, since the Resolution Plan has already stand approved long time back in the year of 2022 which was further confirmed by this Appellate tribunal again in the year 2022, we do not fine any merit in the present appeal.

We would also like to reiterate that the Appellants failed to substantiate their claims by giving suitable proof of payments to the Respondent No.1 who

categorically stated before us that the Respondent No. 1 did not find any proof of payment or the Appellants name in the homebuyer’s list maintained by the Corporate Debtor.

In fine, since the Resolution Plan already stand approved not only by the Adjudicating Authority but also confirmed by this Appellate Tribunal, the present appeal of the Appellants has become infructuous and therefore, stand rejected. No Cost. IA if any are closed.