Ashwani Kumar Sharma vs Mr. Anil Tayalresolution Professional ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 446 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A homebuyer who is a member of a class of homebuyers represented in the insolvency proceedings must proceed through that class, and the decision taken by the class is binding on him; where he faces difficulty in obtaining the relevant information or representation from the authorised representative, his remedy lies in approaching the Resolution Professional and the Adjudicating Authority rather than seeking individual intervention in the proceedings. An Adjudicating Authority does not err in rejecting an individual homebuyer's intervention application where the class of homebuyers is already represented in the matter and the homebuyer's claim is separately pending before it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
In the matter of: Sandeep Kumar Jain ....Appellant Vs. Anil Tayal Resolution Professional of ....Respondent AVJ Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd.
WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 451 of 2022
In the matter of: Ashwani Kumar Sharma ....Appellant Vs. Anil Tayal Resolution Professional of ....Respondent AVJ Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Present For Appellant: Mr. Harshit Aggarwal, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates for RP.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
27.04.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri Abhishek
Anand, Learned Counsel for RP. This Appeal has been filed against the Order
dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench) in New Ivn.P - 10/2022 &
New Ivn.P - 11/2022.
2. The above two Applications were filed for intervention by the two
Homebuyers. The Adjudicating Authority has observed that class of
Homebuyers are already represented in the matter. The Applicant has already
filed the Application questioning rejection of the claim which is still pending
before the Adjudicating Authority. The Intervention Applications were rejected. 2
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant has come up in this Appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that even the authorised
representation of the Homebuyer is not being provided for the relevant facts
and information and hence Appellant had to file an Intervention Application.
4. We are of the view that Appellant as a Homebuyer has to go with class of
Homebuyers and decision taken by the class of Homebuyers is binding. The
authorised representative in the event of any difficulty, it is always open for
him to approach the Resolution Professional and Adjudicating Authority, if so
required.
5. We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error
in rejecting the Intervention Application of the Appellant. There is no merit in
the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.
6. However, looking to the facts of the present case we delete the cost
imposed by the Impugned Order on the Appellants.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
himanshu/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 446 & 451 of 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free