Amarjit Singh vs Crown Abacus It Park Association

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1990 of 2024 & I.A. No.7443 of 2024 Arising out of Order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench in IA-4132/2024 in (IB)-1565(PB)/2018)

IN THE MATTER OF: Gemco Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Crown Abacus IT Park Association Successful Resolution Applicant of Crown Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellants : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Prafful Saini, Ms. Aishwarya Modi, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. A. Mishra, Mr. Sahil, Advocates for SRA.

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2008 of 2024 & I.A. No.7527 of 2024 Arising out of Order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench in IA-4132/2024 in (IB)-1565(PB)/2018)

IN THE MATTER OF: Amarjit Singh (Suspended Director of Crown Realtech Pvt. Ltd.) ...Appellant Versus Crown Abacus IT Park Association Successful Resolution Applicant of Crown Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellants : Mr. Palash S. Singhai, Mr. Sonam Sharma, Ms. Riddhi Jain, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. A. Mishra, Mr. Sahil, Advocates for SRA. Mr. R. K. Gupta, Mr. Swaralipi Deb Roy, Advocates for RP.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 1 JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These two Appeal(s) have been filed challenging order dated

28.08.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,

Principal Bench allowing IA No.4132 of 2024 filed by Respondent No.1 -

Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA") for excluding the period from

12.04.2023 until 01.07.2024 from the period of implementation of the

Resolution Plan approved by NCLT vide its order dated 21.02.2023.

2. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1990 of 2024 has been filed by 08

allottees of the Project in question and the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.)

No.2008 of 2024 has been filed by Suspended Director of the Corporate

Debtor. Both the Appeal(s) were heard together by this Tribunal. In

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1990 of 2024 on 14.11.2024, two weeks'

time was allowed. By another order dated 11.12.2024 SRA was allowed

two weeks' further time to file the affidavit. The SRA in both the Appeal(s)

has filed the affidavit.

3. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1990 of 2024, IA No. 7443 of 2024

has been filed for condonation of 12 days delay in filing of the Appeal and

in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2008 of 2024, IA No.7527 of 2024 has

been filed praying for condonation of 11 days delay in filing the Appeal.

We found that sufficient cause being shown in IA No.7443 of 2024 and IA

No.7527 of 2024 for condoning the delay of 12 days and 11 days, the IA(s)

for delay condonation in filing of the Appeal(s) are allowed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 2

4. Brief background facts giving rise to these Appeal(s) are:

(i) Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP"), against the

Corporate Debtor - M/s Crown Realtech Pvt. Ltd. commenced

vide order dated 06.12.2019. the Corporate Debtor Company

is a real estate Company. In pursuance of the publication

issued by the IRP, 261 Financial Creditors in a class have

filed their claims; claims were also received from Financial

Creditors in other than class of creditors as well as the

Operational Creditors. The Committee of Creditors ("CoC")

was constituted by the Resolution Professional ("RP"). The

95.82% of the CoC was represented by Financial Creditors in

a class. The Resolution Plan was submitted in the CIRP by

the Association of Allottees. The eligibility criteria permitted

Association of Allottees, which consisted of at least 51% of the

Allottees forming part of CoC.

(ii) The Resolution Plan was submitted by Crown Abacus IT Park

Association, which came to be approved by the CoC in its 8 th

Meeting held on 05.12.2020 with 96.38% voting. The RP filed

an Application for approval of Resolution Plan.

(iii) In the Resolution Plan, the Resolution Applicant has

proposed to complete the construction within 12 months with

grace period of six months. The Resolution Plan contained

the details of funding and the source of fund for carrying out

the construction. Resolution Plan was objected to by the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 3 Suspended Director, Amarjit Singh, the Appellant in

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2008 of 2024. The

Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties, vide order

dated 21.02.2023 approved the Resolution Plan submitted by

Respondent No.1 - Association of Allottees.

(iv) Aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2023, three Appeal(s) were

filed being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.431 of 2023 (Crown

Business Park Tower A Buyers Association, Faridabad vs.

Atul Kansal & Ors.); Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.432 &

433 of 2023 (Amarjit Singh Suspended Director of Crown

Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Atul Kansal & Ors.); Company Appeal

(AT) (Ins.) No.434 of 2023 (Cimco Projects Ltd. vs. Crown

Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.). Two Appeals were filed by Amarjit

Singh, Suspended Director (who is Appellant in Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2008 of 2024); one by Crown Business

Park Tower A Buyers Association and other by Cimco Projects

Ltd., who was unsuccessful Resolution Applicant. When the

Appeal(s) came for hearing, the Appellant(s) in the above

Appeal(s) prayed for an interim order. This Tribunal passed

an interim order on 12.04.2023 directing listing of Appeal on

26.04.2023 and a direction that "Successful Resolution

Applicant shall not transfer any unit till the next date". The

interim order passed by this Tribunal continued from time to

time. The SRA has also filed an Application for vacating the

interim order, however, interim order continued till the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 4 Appeal(s) were finally decided by judgment and order of this

Tribunal dated 01.07.2024.

(v) The SRA after approval of Resolution Plan proceeded to act in

accordance with Resolution Plan and taken various steps.

However, the construction was not complete, when the

Appeal(s) were decided on 01.07.2024. After dismissal of the

Appeal(s) and vacation of interim order operating in the

Appeal(s), IA No.4132 of 2024 was filed by the SRA seeking

exclusion of period from 12.04.2023 until 01.07.2024 from

period of implementation of Resolution Plan, which

Application came for consideration before the Adjudicating

Authority and Adjudicating Authority vide order dated

28.08.2024 allowed the Application and granted exclusion of

446 days from 12.04.2023 upto 01.07.2024 from the period

of implementation of Resolution Plan.

(vi) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order these two Appeal(s) have

been filed.

5. We have heard Shri Gaurav Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for

the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1990 of 2024; Shri Palash

S. Singhai, learned Counsel appearing for Appellant in Company Appeal

(AT) (Ins.) No.2008 of 2024; Mr. A. Mishra and Mr. Sahil, learned Counsel

appeared for SRA; and Shri R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appeared for RP.

6. Shri Gaurav Mitra, learned Counsel for the Appellant at the outset

submitted that affidavit filed by Salil Barar need not be considered, since

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 5 an Administrator has been appointed in the Association of Respondent

No.1 by the State Registrar of Societies, vide order dated 14.10.2024 in a

Reference Case. It is submitted that Salil Barar, who has sworn the

affidavit has no authority to file an affidavit and it is the Administrator,

who is competent to file an affidavit. Shri Gaurav Mitra further submits

that the time schedule for implementation of the Resolution Plan as

provided in Clause 8.5.1 of the Resolution Plan provides for 12 months

period for completion of construction with six months' grace period. The

SRA has not implemented the Resolution Plan within 18 months of

approval of Resolution Plan. It is submitted that reliance of the SRA on

the interim order passed by this tribunal on 12.04.2023 for not

implementing the Resolution Professional is misplaced. It is submitted

that this tribunal vide interim order dated 12.04.2023, has only

restrained the SRA for not transferring the unit, which interim order did

not provide a restraint on the SRA to implement the Resolution Plan

within the time as contemplated in the Resolution Plan. It is submitted

that as per Resolution Plan, the SRA was to infuse Rs.10 crores and

admittedly only Rs.7 crores has been infused by the SRA. It is submitted

that the timeline for implementation of the Resolution Plan was essential

for timely delivery of the units to the allottees, including the Appellant. In

the affidavit filed in this Appeal, although it is pleaded that work orders

for award of various work /contract have been issued to the tune of

Rs.18,23,04,979/-, but there are no status report regarding the extent of

construction carried out by the SRA. The SRA has been slack in carrying

out the construction and implementation of the Plan. The SRA was not

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 6 entitled for exclusion of 446 days as prayed in the Application. The

Adjudicating Authority without considering the relevant facts has granted

the exclusion. No grounds have been made out for exclusion of the time.

It was necessary for the SRA to infuse Rs.10 crores to kick start the

construction work. The SRA was to continue with the construction of

completion of incomplete towers for the delivery to the allottees.

7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant appearing in Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2008 of 2024 also adopted the submissions

advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins.) No.1990 of 2024. It is submitted that construction of Tower B1 was

80% complete and the Resolution Plan contemplated that Tower B-1 shall

be completed within six months from the date of approval of Resolution

Plan by the NCLT with grace period of three months. No proof has been

brought on record that 20% of Tower B-1 has been completed. The

affidavit filed by the SRA is silent about 20% construction. No status

report has been filed regarding construction. Only three quarter reports

have been submitted. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred

to the order dated 09.09.2024 issued by District Registrar of Societies,

Faridabad, where the Office Bearers has been removed. Learned Counsel

for the Appellant further submits that nothing has been deposited in the

Escrow Account by the SRA.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that order

passed by Registrar of Societies has been challenged by means of Writ

Petition bearing CWP No.29016 of 2024 by the officer bearers of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 7 Society, where Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed an order for

maintaining the status quo on 25.10.2024, which order is still continuing.

Hence, the Respondent is fully entitled to file an affidavit. It is submitted

that after approval of Resolution Plan, SRA has proceeded to implement

the Plan and various steps have been taken including obtaining renewal

of license from Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana

("DTCP") by depositing a huge amount of Rs.4,36,47,450/- and

subsequent amounts. It is submitted that details of renewal and payment

made have all been stated in the affidavit. It is submitted that SRA has

also obtained environmental clearance and has also made payment to

Dakshin Haryana Vidhyut Nigam for restoration of temporary electricity

connection. The SRA engaged the services of firm i.e. Nivedita & Uday

Pande Consultants as project management consultancy firm for

completion of the Project. Substantial payment of amount of Rs.1.5

crores have also been made on 01.04.2023 to the consultant firm.

Various works including feasibility report; renewal of TCP license; co-

ordination for structural audit; no objection for height clearance from

Airports Authority of India and many substantial payments have been

made. It is submitted that as per Resolution Plan, the SRA was to receive

an amount of Rs.50 crores from the sale of units, which amount could not

be obtained on account of interim order passed by this Tribunal in

aforesaid Appeal on 12.04.2023. The submission of the Appellant that

interim order in no manner interdicted the SRA to complete the

construction is incorrect. The SRA could not sale the units or realize the

amount of Rs.50 crores, which was necessary for completion of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 8 construction. It is submitted that Appellants in Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins.) No.1990 of 2024 were allottees, who have also not paid their

balance dues, despite communication and emails sent by the SRA. The

Appellants in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1990 of 2024 on the one

hand have not paid their dues and on the other hand are challenging the

impugned order by which exclusion of time was allowed by the

Adjudicating Authority on insufficient ground.

9. Coming to the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2008 of 2024, it is

submitted that the Appellant is a Suspended Director, who had

challenged the approval of Resolution Plan before this Appellate Tribunal

by filing two Appeals, which Appeals were heard and decided by this

Tribunal on 01.07.2024. The Appellant - Suspended Director has no

ground to challenge the exclusion of time. The Suspended Director has

challenged the approval of Resolution Plan and has failed. The filing of

this Appeal by Suspended Director is another attempt to create hindrance

in implementation of the Resolution Plan and handing over of the units to

the allottees.

10. We have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the

parties and perused the records.

11. IA No.4132 of 2024 was filed by SRA on 27.07.2024 after passing of

the judgment by this Tribunal on 01.07.2024. In the Application detailed

facts were pleaded by the Applicant. Reliance on the interim order dated

12.04.2023 was made. Relevant provisions of Resolution Plan regarding

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 9 source of fund etc. were made. It was further pleaded that stay on the

transfer of units, further impacted the inflow of receivables. It is useful to

extract paragraph 12, 13, and 14 of IA No.4132 of 2024, which are as

follows:

"12. That it submitted that the Clause 8.4 (Source of Funding) of the Resolution Plan talks about the proposed funding plan and this Hon'ble Tribunal while passing the order dated 21.02.2023 in IA No. 5687/2020 reproduced the proposed funding plan at page no. 20 and 21 of the said order. The proposed funding plan is mentioned herein below in tabular form.

S. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)

1. Up front infusion by the 10,00,00,000/- Resolution Applicant (Debt)

2. Up front infusion by the 7,50,000/- Resolution Applicant in the form of Equity

3. Receivables from allottees of 34,63,62,487/-

the Tower-BI and B-2 as per the information provided by Resolution Professional

4. Sale of unsold inventory of the 50,00,00,000/-

Corporate Debtor admeasuring 1,00,000 sq. ft. @ Rs. 5,000/-

per sq.ft.

5. Allocation of 80% of total 1700 54,40,00,000/-

car parking slots @ avg. price of Rs.4,00,000/- per parking

6. Branding 6,00,00,000/-

Total 155,11,12,487/-

13. That it is pertinent to state that in the Resolution Plan, the Applicant/ SRA proposed to generate Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores) by selling the unsold inventory of the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 10 Corporate Debtor admeasuring 1,00,000 sq. ft. @Rs. 5,000/- per sq. ft. However, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 12.04.2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 431, 432, 433 and 434 of 2023 restrained the Applicant/SRA from selling any unit in the project.

14. That it is submitted that the stay on transfer of units further impacted on the inflow of receivables as it aggravated apprehensions in the mind of allottees with respect to their money which they were further required to pay for implementation of the project. The allottees had cited the stay as a reason for non-payment of their dues.

12. Apart from interim order dated 12.04.2023 directions issued by

Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR has also been referred,

due to which for about one month, restriction was there in construction.

It was specifically pleaded that SRA has spent total amount of

Rs.15,46,09,945/- towards payment of CIRP cost, operational creditors

and statutory authorities etc. and work orders to the tune of

Rs.13,46,08,494/- has been awarded towards firefighting and fire doors

work, structural repair and rehabilitation of buildings, ventilation

pressurization and HVAC work and facia repairs. It is further pleaded that

it was on the basis of 9th meeting of the Monitoring Committee held on

11.07.2024, where Monitoring Committee resolve to file an Application for

exclusion. Consequently, the Application for exclusion of time was filed.

13. As noted above, when the Appeal came for consideration, we

directed the SRA to file an affidavit so as to provide details of action taken

by SRA in pursuance of the approval of Resolution Plan may be looked

into. The SRA has filed an affidavit dated 02.01.2025 in both the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 11 Appeal(s). An objection has been raised by the Appellant to the affidavit

filed sworn by Salil Barar, the then President of SRA, who had submitted

the Resolution Plan, which was approved on 21.02.2023. Learned

Counsel for the Appellant relies on order passed on 14.10.2024 by which

order an Administrator has been appointed in the Respondent No.'1's

Society by the State Registrar of Societies, Faridabad. In the affidavit, the

SRA has referred to the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

dated 25.10.2024, on which date, following order was passed:

"CWP-29016-2024 SALIL BARAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

PRESENT Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Gauri C. Kaushal, Advocate, Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate, and Mr. Anjaneya Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vivek Saini, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5.

On joint request, adjourned to 11.11.2024 for arguments. Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained till the next date of hearing."

14. When this Tribunal allowed the SRA to file an affidavit in this

Appeal, the object was to find out the action taken by the SRA after the

approval of Resolution Plan, to find out as to whether the order passed by

Adjudicating Authority excluding the period need to be interfered with or

not. The order impugned was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on

28.08.2024, which order was challenged by the Appellant(s) in these

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 12 Appeal(s). According to the own case of the Appellant, it was only on

14.10.2024 that Registrar of Societies passed an order in respect of officer

bearers of the Society, which order is under challenge and under

consideration before the High Court. It is an admitted fact that Salil

Barar, who has filed an affidavit was the President of the Crown Abacus

IT Park Association, who was Successful Resolution Applicant, who was

implementing the Resolution Plan. We, thus are of the view that affidavit

of SRA with regard to action, which have taken by the SRA at the relevant

time, is relevant to be looked into and the affidavit cannot be rejected on

the ground as contended by the Appellant.

15. We also need to notice that Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1990 of

2024 has been filed by 08 allottees, whereas before the RP, claims were

filed by 261 allottees and the Resolution Plan was approved with 96.38%

vote share. In the present case, the SRA is Association of allottees, which

according to the pleadings on record consists of about 250 members.

Another Appeal (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.2008 of 2024) was filed by

Suspended Director, who had earlier filed Appeal challenging approval of

Resolution Plan, which Appeal came to be dismissed by this Tribunal by

detailed judgment, considering elaborate submissions. We further notice

from the pleadings in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1990 of 2024 that

Appellants have raised ground in the Appeal challenging the eligibility of

SRA, including the ground that RP has manipulated the eligibility criteria

in RFRP to unreasonably favouring Respondent No.1. Further, RP

granted Respondent No.1 permissions to carry out unauthorized

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 13 modifications to its Resolution Plan and RP failed to verify Respondent

No.1 towards it eligibility to submit the Plan. These grounds have been

taken in paragraph 7 (u), (v) and (w). The Appellant also by the present

Appeal are pleading that CIRP of the Corporate Debtor should be

commenced afresh.

16. The Appellants sought to challenge the approval of the Resolution

Plan indirectly while making allegation of eligibility against SRA, which

grounds are not relevant, nor need any consideration. The challenge to

approval of Resolution Plan has been made in four Appeal(s), earlier filed

(as noted above), which has already been dismissed by this Tribunal on

01.07.2024. The submission, which has been pressed by the Appellants

that interim order passed by this Tribunal on 12.04.2023 does not give

any cause to SRA to pray for exclusion of period. The interim order,

which was passed in the earlier Appeal(s) by this Tribunal dated

12.04.2023 is as follows:

"12.04.2023: Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that various objections to the Resolution Plan which has been approved by the Impugned Order has remained undecided and those applications have been listed subsequently after delivery of the Order.

2. Issue notice to the Respondents through Speed Post as well as Email. Requisites along with process fee, if not filed, be filed within two days. Appellant may also serve the Respondents personally within a week.

List these Appeals on 26th April, 2023. Successful Resolution Applicant shall not transfer any unit till the next date."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 14

17. Consequent to the interim order, the SRA was unable to transfer

any units and it was deprived off the major source of fund, which was

contemplated in the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan, Chapter-7

dealt with funding of Plan and source of funds. Proposed Funds Plan as

contained in paragraph 7.1 is as follows:

"PROPOSED FUNDING PLAN

S. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)

1. Up front infusion by the 10,00,00,000 Resolution Applicant

2. Up front infusion by the 7,50,000 Resolution Applicant in the form of Equity

3. Receivables from allottees of the 34,63,62,487 Tower-BI and B-2 as per the information provided by Resolution Professional

4. Sale of unsold inventory of the 50,00,00,000 Corporate Debtor admeasuring 1,00,000 sq. ft. @ Rs. 5,000/- per sq.ft.

5. Allocation of 80% of total 1700 54,40,00,000 car parking slots @ avg. price of Rs.4,00,000/- per parking

6. Branding 6,00,00,000

Total 155,11,12,487/-

18. Item at Sl. No.4 of the above 'Proposed Funding Plan' indicate that

from 'sale of unsold inventory of the Corporate Debtor' an amount of

Rs.50 crores was to be received. The interim order passed by this

Tribunal clearly prohibited the SRA to realise the aforesaid amount of

Rs.50 crores. We, thus, are not satisfied with the submission of the

Appellant that interim order passed in the Appeal(s) (as aforesaid) in no

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 15 manner have aby adverse effect on the SRA in implementing the

Resolution Plan.

19. The present is not a case where after approval of the Resolution

Plan, the Applicant has not taken any steps towards the implementation

of the Resolution Plan and has not infused any funds. It is the case of the

Appellants that although an amount of Rs.10 crores was to be infused by

the SRA. The fact that SRA has infused Rs.7 crores, is not even disputed

and it is an admitted fact. In the Application, which was filed before the

Adjudicating Authority, the SRA has given the details of various steps

taken by it towards implementation of the Plan and amount spent by the

SRA towards the implementation of the Plan. It has been pleaded in

paragraph-18 of the Application that an amount of Rs.15,46,09,545/- has

been spent by the SRA toward payment of CIRP cost, operational creditors

and statutory authorities etc. and work order awarded to the tune of

Rs.13,46,08,494/- has been issued. In the affidavit, which has been filed

in these Appeal(s), the SRA has also pleaded and brought on record

materials to indicate that for renewal of license substantial amount has

been spent by the SRA, renewal from DTCP, Haryana has been obtained,

which was further renewed and currently is now in operation till

19.03.2026. Huge amount has been spent by the SRA for obtaining the

renewal. As noted above the SRA has also submitted an application to

the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority for securing the

grant of environment clearance and amount has been deposited where on

28.05.2024, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority has

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 16 recommended for grant of environmental clearance. Electricity

connection has been restored by Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Nigam,

Faridabad. In paragraphs 24 and 25 of the affidavit, following has been

pleaded by SRA:

"24. I say that apart from applying and securing the aforesaid requisites sanctions and permission from various authorities, the Respondent No. I has also awarded various work orders/contracts to the tune of Rs. 18,23,04,979/- The details of the same is mentioned hereinbelow in tabular form for the reference of this hon'ble Appellate Tribunal:

S. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Structural Audit (Tower B1-B2) 20,65,000 2. Facia Repair (Tower-B1) 66,60,350 3. Lifts (Nos.6) for Tower-B1 2,30,10,000 4. HVAC & Ventilation 4,69,92,644 5. Fire and Safety alarms 3,55,55,350

6. Structural Restoration Works 5,20,60,500 (Tower B1-B2)

7. ACP Sheets for Facia (Tower B-1) 47,02,144

8. Cradle (2 Nos.) 4,54,300

9. Plumbing 1,08,04,191

Total 18,23,04,979/-

25. I say that against the said work orders/contracts, the Respondents No. I has already made the total payment of Rs.337,41,781/- until 01.07.2024. Apart from the above stated expenses, the Respondent No. l has incurred the total sum of Rs. 2,18,40,607/- on account of legal, professional, taxes and administrative charges from 12.04.2023 till 01.07.2024."

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 17

20. The present is a case where approval of Resolution Plan was

challenged before this Tribunal in four Appeal(s), in which Appeal(s),

interim order was also passed on 12.04.2023 and Appeal(s) could be

ultimately decided on 01.07.2024, rejecting the challenge to the approval

of Resolution Plan by elaborate consideration. The period, which was

sought to be excluded by the SRA is period from which interim order was

started operating against the SRA. When the approval of Resolution Plan

is challenged in the Appeal(s), and the issues remained sub-judice and

pending consideration and an interim order was also passed by this

tribunal, we do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating

Authority, excluding the period from implementation of the Resolution

Plan, during which an interim order was operating against the SRA. As

noted above, the SRA has moved an Application in the Appeal(s) for

vacation of the interim order, which Application could not be decided and

remained pending till the dismissal of the Appeal till 01.07.2024. We,

thus, are satisfied that substantial steps were taken by the SRA to

implement the Resolution Plan and various steps were taken by the SRA

to implement the Plan as has been pleaded in the Application filed by the

SRA as well as in the affidavit in the present Appeal. We have also

noticed above that SRA is none-else than the Association of allottees,

which is representing about 250 allottees. One of the Association of the

allottees had also challenged the Resolution Plan, which Appeal was also

dismissed as noted above.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 18

21. In view of our foregoing discussion, we do not find any error in the

order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 28.08.2024 excluding

the period from 12.04.2023 to 01.07.2024, during which the interim order

passed by this Tribunal in the Appeal(s) challenging the approval of

Resolution Plan was in operation. We, thus, do not find any merit in any

of the Appeal(s). Both the Appeal(s) are dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

23rd January, 2025

Ashwani

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1990 & 2008 of 2024 19