Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(c) As the approved Resolution Plan is in contravention of the provisions of the NHB Act, the same ought not to have been put forth before the CoC for voting. Furthermore, Section 30(2)(e) provides that the Code's provisions are read harmoniously with the requirements of the other laws in force (i.e. NHB Act and its directions) and not in supersession.

3.8 The Resolution Plan has been implemented, and a new entity has been formed:

(a) During arguments, the advocates for the erstwhile Corporate Debtor contented that under the Order passed by the Hon'ble NCLT approving the Resolution Plan, the same was implemented. By way of a reverse merger, the Successful Resolution Applicant merged into the Corporate Debtor. Thus, a new entity, namely, Piramal Capital & Housing Finance ("PCHF") was formed. Basis this development, PCHF contended that the mandatory obligations under the NHB Act, which Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 759 & 760 of 2021 18 of 65 arose due to the failure of the Corporate Debtor, did not apply to SRA' PCHF'.
(b) The Appellants submit that the said argument is flawed and untenable as admittedly, by way of a reverse merger, the Successful Resolution Applicant merged into the Corporate Debtor; thus, the Corporate Debtor is till date in existence and thus, the obligations of the Corporate Debtor to comply with the provisions of the NHB Act exist.

Furthermore, the Appellants Applications were filed before the reverse merger and before the approved Resolution Plan was placed before the CoC. Thus, any steps taken by the Respondents despite the pendency of the UP Applications were subject to the orders of the Tribunal. 3.9 Prejudice caused to the Appellant: