Harjit Singh Ahluwalia & Ors vs Udayraj Patwardhan Resolution ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Harjit Singh Ahluwalia & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

Udayraj Patwardhan, RP, Adel Landmarks Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellants : Mr. Denson Joseph, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Apoorva Chowdhury, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mansvi Jain, Mr. Yash Tandon, Advocates for R-2 (SRA).

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

09.10.2025: This appeal has been filed against order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority in IA No.65 of 2025 by which the application filed by

the Applicant Harjit Singh Ahluwalia and 182 others, total 183 homebuyers,

praying for rejection of the resolution plan has been rejected. Out of 183

Applicants, only 93 Applicants have filed this appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection

that this appeal is not maintainable at the instance of the Appellants since

the Resolution Plan has been approved by 96.56% vote share of the creditors

in class and out of 183 homebuyers who has filed the application before the

Adjudicating Authority 72 person has voted in favour of the plan. Learned

counsel for the Respondent has referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Cont'd.../ Court in (2022) 1 SCC 401, Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments

Welfare Association and Ors. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors. and submits

that the Applicants/Appellants who are minority homebuyers cannot be

allowed to challenge the resolution plan which has been approved by the

majority of creditors in class. It is submitted that the Appellants have to sail

along with the decision of the majority and cannot be allowed to challenge the

plan.

3. Counsel for the Appellant refuting the submissions of learned counsel

for the Respondent submits that the jurisdiction is with the Adjudicating

Authority to intervene in the resolution plan. He has referred to judgment of

Hon'ble supreme court in Jaypee Kensington to submit that there is scope

of judicial review permitting the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating

Authority could have intervened with the resolution plan on application filed

by the Appellants. It is further submitted that there was suppression of

several facts by the Resolution Professional due to which vote which were

given by the homebuyers were not after knowing the full facts. It is submitted

that those are the grounds on which this appeal has been filed.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

5. When the creditors in a class voted on a resolution plan, as per

provisions of the I&B Code, the vote of the majority of the said creditors in a

class has to be treated and the minority has to sail with the decision of the

majority. In the present case, plan has been approved with 96.56% votes of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1211 of 2025 2 of 3 creditors in a class and 72 homebuyers out of the applicants themselves have

voted in favour of the Resolution Plan. In the present case, we are of the view

that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application holding

that application at the instance of minority homebuyers cannot be

entertained. We are of the view that grounds which are sought to be urged

by the Appellant cannot be held sufficient grounds to interfere with the order

of the Adjudicating Authority. There is no dispute to the proposition that if

resolution plan is not compliant with provisions of Section 30(2), it can be

interfered with but present is not a case that any non-compliance of Section

30(2) is made out. We, thus, are of the view that following the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington, Appeal has to be dismissed

and is hereby dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1211 of 2025 3 of 3