{"id":217914,"date":"2019-08-09T22:00:35","date_gmt":"2019-08-09T16:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=217914"},"modified":"2019-08-13T11:14:28","modified_gmt":"2019-08-13T05:44:28","slug":"big-relief-for-homebuyers-as-sc-upholds-the-validity-of-the-2018-amendments-to-ibc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/09\/big-relief-for-homebuyers-as-sc-upholds-the-validity-of-the-2018-amendments-to-ibc\/","title":{"rendered":"Big relief for homebuyers as SC upholds the validity of the 2018 Amendments to IBC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant, JJ has held the Amendment Act to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 made pursuant to a report prepared by the Insolvency Law Committee dated 26th March, 2018 does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n

The amendments so made deem allottees of real estate projects to be \u201cfinancial creditors\u201d so that they may trigger the Code, under Section 7 thereof, against the real estate developer. In addition, being financial creditors, they are entitled to be represented in the Committee of Creditors by authorised representatives.<\/p>\n

HOMEBUYERS AS FINANCIAL CREDITORS<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Amendment was challenged on ground that the treatment of allottees as financial creditors violates two facets of Article 14. One<\/em>, that the amendment is discriminatory inasmuch as it treats unequals equally, and equals unequally, having no intelligible differentia; and two<\/em>, that there is no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the Code.<\/p>\n

On this the Court said that like other financial creditors, be they banks and financial institutions, or other individuals, all persons who have advanced monies to the corporate debtor should have the right to be on the Committee of Creditors.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cTrue, allottees are unsecured creditors, but they have a vital interest in amounts that are advanced for completion of the project, maybe to the extent of 100% of the project being funded by them alone.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Court further said that given the fact that allottees may not be a homogenous group, yet there are only two ways in which they can vote on the Committee of Creditors \u2013 either to approve or to disapprove of a proposed resolution plan.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cSub-section (3A) goes a long way to ironing out any creases that may have been felt in the working of Section 25A in that the authorised representative now casts his vote on behalf of all financial creditors that he represents. If a decision taken by a vote of more than 50% of the voting share of the financial creditors that he represents is that a particular plan be either 145 accepted or rejected, it is clear that the minority of those who vote, and all others, will now be bound by this decision.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

DEEMING PROVISION<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court noticed that although a deeming provision is to deem what is not there in reality, thereby requiring the subject matter to be treated as if it were real, yet several authorities and judgments show that a deeming fiction can also be used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that might otherwise be uncertain. It held,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cthe deeming fiction that is used by the explanation is to put beyond doubt the fact that allottees are to be regarded as financial creditors within the enacting part contained in Section 5(8)(f) of the Code.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

EXPLANATION ADDED TO SECTION 5(8)(f) <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court further noticed that an explanation does not ordinarily enlarge the scope of the original Section. But if it does, effect must be given to the legislative intent notwithstanding the fact that the legislature has named a provision as an explanation. It, hence, held,<\/p>\n

\n

“the explanation was added by the Amendment Act only to clarify doubts that had arisen as to whether home buyers\/allottees were subsumed within Section 5(8)(f). The explanation added to Section 5(8)(f) of the Code by the Amendment Act does not in fact enlarge the scope of the original Section as home buyers\/allottees would be subsumed within Section 5(8)(f) as it originally stood.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

RULING<\/strong><\/p>\n