JAYPEE KENSINGTON BOULEVARD APARTMENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS. versus NBCC (INDIA) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 24-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 16 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
JAYPEE KENSINGTON BOULEVARD APARTMENTS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.
v.
NBCC (INDIA) LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3395 of 2020)
MARCH 24, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss. 30(2) and 31 –
Contours of the jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority in dealing
with a resolution plan – Held: The Adjudicating Authority has limited
jurisdiction in the matter of approval of a resolution plan, which is
well-defined and circumscribed by ss.30(2) and 31 of the Code – In
the adjudicatory process concerning a resolution plan under IBC,
there is no scope for interference with the commercial aspects of
the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC); and there is no
scope for substituting any commercial term of the resolution plan
approved by Committee of Creditors – If, within its limited
jurisdiction, the Adjudicating Authority finds any shortcoming in
the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters, it would only
send the resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors, for re-
submission after satisfying the parameters delineated by the Code
and exposited by the Supreme Court.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Resolution plan –
Activities of the corporate debtor had impact on a large number of
persons/ entities, including buyers of flats/apartments in its real
estate development projects – Whether approval of the resolution
plan of NBCC was vitiated because of simultaneous voting over
two resolution plans in the Committee of Creditors – Held: The
process of simultaneous voting over two plans for electing one of
them could not be faulted in the present case; and approval of the
resolution plan of NBCC was not vitiated because of simultaneous
consideration and voting over two resolution plans by the Committee
of Creditors.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Resolution plan –
Activities of the corporate debtor had impact on a large number of
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 603
603
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
persons/ entities, including buyers of flats/apartments in its real
estate development projects – Whether, after approval of the
resolution plan of NBCC by the Committee of Creditors, where
homebuyers as a class assented to the plan, any individual
homebuyer or any association of homebuyers could maintain a
challenge to the resolution plan and could be treated as a dissenting
financial creditor or an aggrieved person – Whether any housing
project which was completed or nearing completion ought to be
kept out of the purview of the resolution plan – Held: On facts, the
homebuyers as a class having assented to the resolution plan of
NBCC, any individual homebuyer or any association of homebuyers
cannot maintain a challenge to the resolution plan and cannot be
treated as a dissenting financial creditor or an aggrieved person;
and when the resolution plan comprehensively deals with all the
assets and liabilities of the corporate debtor, no housing project of
the corporate debtor could be segregated merely for the reason
that same was completed or nearing completion.
The instant matters essentially related to a resolution plan
in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 concerning the corporate
debtor, Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL), whose activities had
impact on a large number of persons/ entities, including buyers
of flats/apartments in its real estate development projects. CIRP
in relation to the corporate debtor JIL had been entangled in
various disputes in the past and even when the resolution plan
submitted by the resolution applicant, NBCC (India) Limited was
approved by the Committee of Creditors by a substantial majority
of 97.36% of voting share of the financial creditors, several
disputes/objections came up from various stakeholders and role
players, voicing the concerns of their own, like dissenting financial
creditors, dissatisfied homebuyers, displeased land providing
agency, disillusioned creditor of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
corporate debtor and disappointed minority shareholders. Apart
from all these, the holding company of the corporate debtor,
namely, Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) and its
stakeholders had several questions over the resolution process
in question and were particularly concerned with the sum of INR
750 crores, which was deposited by JAL pursuant to the orders
passed by this Court in the first round of litig

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.