BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,

NEW DELHI
l.A. NO. 3024 OF 2022
IN
C.P. (IB) NO. 717 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
(Now Punjab National Bank) Financial Creditor
VERSUS

SIDHARTHA BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED

•Corporate Debtor
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
HARBANS SINGH & ORS.
Applicants
VERSUS
SHRI DEVENDER SINGH & ANR.
Respondents
INDEX
SL.NOS PARTICULARS PAGE NOS

1. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF

OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED -O
04.07.2022
2. ANNEXURE R- 1
A copy of the email dated 20.06.2022 Oq !'
received from the Respondent No.1
3. ANNEXURE R-2
A true copy of the order dated
08.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

c<T ITTED BY:-

Shiv Mangal Shm. aurabh Rajpal
Advocates
D-291, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110024
E Mail:-auraleaguegmail.com
Mob:-7042700 133
 BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI
l.A. NO. 3024 OF 2022
IN
C.P. (IB) NO. 717 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
(Now Punjab National Bank) Financial Creditor
VERSUS
SIDHARTHA BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED . . . Corporate Debtor
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
HARBANS SINGH & ORS.
Applicants
VERSUS
SHRI DEVENDER SINGH & ANR.
Respondents
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT NO. 2, SIDDHARTH CHAUHAN
1. That captioned application is being filed by Six Home Buyers

herein, seeking directions to declare the Respondent No.2 as

ineligible to present a Resolution Plan as per Section 29(A) of the

Code and further not to consider the Resolution Plan of the

Respondent No.2 in view of ineligibility.

2. That vide Interim Order dated 04.07.2022, this Hon'ble Tribunal,

directed that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) shall not proceed

further with the Resolution Plan submitted by the Promoter /

Suspended Director till next date of hearing.

3. It is submitted that Respondent no. 2 herein is a power

suspended/ex-promoter director and is engaged in the real estate

business as the Flagship Company being Sidhartha Buildhome

Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The said Company was

incorporated and registered with the Registrar of Companies on

 2
21.11.1995 and the Respondent no. 2 holds 97% of the

shareholding of the said Company.

4. It is submitted that in the instant case, the Corporate Insolvency

Resolution Process ("CIRP") commenced vide an order dated

04.03.2021 of the Corporate Debtor upon an application filed

under Section 7 by the Oriental Bank of Commerce and the Interim

Resolution Professional was appointed viz Mr. Devender Singh

Respondent No.1 herein).

5. That the Ld. Resolution Professional published a Form G on

07.05.2021, thereby inviting the EoI from the PRA's with the last

date for submission of EOI being 22.05.2020. Pursuant to same the

Respondent no.2 herein before the 7th CoC meeting dated

06.08.202 1 submitted his proposal under Section 12A of the Code,

2016 before the CoC for consideration with respect to his

commitment to completing both the projects (i.e., NCR Green

situated at Sector 95 Gurugram and Project Estella situated at

Sector 103, Gurugram). However, without considering and further

without giving a fair chance to Respondent no.2 herein, the CoC

declined the aforesaid proposal.

6. That during the consideration of the Resolution Plans of the PRA's

i.e., Prabhatam Investment Private Limited and Sandeep Gupta and

Shalini Gupta, Aadi Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Engineering Projects India

Ltd. (in consortium) by the CoC, the Respondent No. 2 also

submitted a Withdrawal Proposal under Section 12A of the Code,

2016 on 01.12.2021. In this regard, the Respondent No. 2 also

approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by way of Application being l.A.

No. 5638/202 1 seeking directions for considering the Withdrawal

 3
Proposal for voting along with the other PRA's and this Hon'ble

Tribunal was pleased to allow the said application vide order dated

07. 12.202 1

7. Thereafter, several meetings were convened by the CoC wherein,

the feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plans and Section 12A

proposal were discussed and after the approval from the CoC, the

same was kept for consideration. The CoC through e-voting

concluded on 11.02.2022 and resolved that none of the Resolution

Plans as well as the Section l2A proposal were feasible and viable.

That further through e-voting concluded on 22.02.2022, both the

Plans i.e., Prabhatam Investment Private Limited and Sandeep

Gupta and Shalini Gupta, Aadi Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Engineering

Projects India Ltd. (in consortium) and the Section 12A proposal of

Respondent No. 2 were rejected.

8. Thereafter, as per the decision of the CoC a fresh EoI along with the

Form-G was published on 23.02.2022 inviting the Resolution

Applicants, wherein it was mentioned that the Corporate Debtor

has been registered as an MSMEs by which Respondent No. 2,

submitted his EOI as being eligible under MSMEs as per Section

29A read with Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 and the same was never objected by the CoC.

9. Thereafter, on 15.03.2022, the provisional list of the eligible PRA's

was issued wherein, Respondent No. 2 was also selected as one of

the eligible Resolution Applicants.

At this juncture, after the registration of the Corporate Debtor

under the MSME Scheme, the Respondent No. 2 became eligible for
 4
submitting the Resolution Plan in his individual capacity as per

Section 29A read with Section 240A of the Code,2016.

10. Further, upon not receiving any objections from CoC qua the

Respondent No. 2, the Ld. Resolution Professional published the

final list of PRA's on 25.03.2022 declaring Respondent No. 2 as

eligible to submit his Resolution Plan.

11. That on 20.04.2022, the Respondent No. 2 submitted its Resolution

Plan under Form-G wherein, the EMD of Rs. 5 Crores was also

kept/deposited with the CoC as a pre-requisite for submitting the

Resolution Plan for the Respondent No.2 herein.

12. That thereafter several meetings were convened by the CoC for

discussing the plan of the Respondent no. 2 herein and further

opinion/suggestions were sought from the Legal Experts regarding

Resolution Plan of the Respondent No.2. However, the issue of

ineligibility was never raised by the present Applicant even after

taking the suggestions of the Legal Experts. In fact, pursuant to all

the queries raised by the CoC and their legal experts regarding the

plan, the Respondent No. 2 incorporated/considered all the

suggestions in the plan and sent an email to the Ld. Resolution

Professional on 20.06.2022.

A copy of the email dated 20.06.2022 received from the Respondent

No.1 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R/ 1

13. That vide the 23rd CoC meeting conducted on 20.06.2022, the

Resolution Plan of the Respondent No. 2 was discussed. On the

said basis, an email dated 23.06.2022 was sent by the Ld.

Resolution Professional to the Respondent No. 2 for submitting the

Addendum documents qua the Resolution Plan as per the queries

 raised by the CoC and their legal experts. Pursuant to the same, a

final Addendum dated 25.06.2022 explaining all the queries along

with the proof of funds and signed Advance Cheque of Rs. 20 Crore

was submitted to show the bonafide and waited for the Resolution

plan to be placed before the CoC by the Ld. Resolution Professional

(Respondent No.1 herein). However suddenly without any meeting

or any discussion qua the ineligibility of the Respondent No. 2, an

application being l.A. No. 3024 of 2022 in C.P.(I.B) No.7 17 of 2019

was filed with the malafide intent before this Hon'ble Tribunal by

only 6 HOMEBUYERS OUT OF 834 HOMEBUYERS just to stall

the entire projects and to abuse the process of law.

14. It is humbly submitted that as per Section 29A read with Section

240A of the IBC, 2016, the Respondent No. 2 is eligible to submit

the Resolution Plan if the Corporate Debtor is registered under a

Micro Small Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs).

15. It is humbly submitted that a notification dated 05.11.2014 was

issued by the Office of the Development Commissioner, MSME qua

the categorization of activities under manufacture or service under

the MSME Act, 2006, whereby, the "Infrastructure & Real Estate

Activities" were included in the ambit of the MSMEs. It is submitted

that the provisions of the MSME Act, 2006 are applicable on any

enterprise which falls within the eligibility criteria as laid down in

the said Act and hence, the Corporate Debtor would also fall under

the definition of MSME, thereby making the Respondent No. 2

eligible to submit his Resolution Plan and the same shall be

considered by the CoC.

 6
16. It is further submitted that the another notification dated

26.06.2020 was issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium

Enterprises (MSMEs) bearing No. S.O 2119(E), whereby the criteria

laid down in the previous notification dated 05.11.2014 was revised

upwards so as to include more enterprises under the beneficial

schemes of the MSME Act, 2006. Furthermore, the said notification

dated 26.06.2020 made it mandatory for all MSMEs to register

under the Udyam Scheme. Be that as it may, it is imperative to

point out that the categorization of an enterprise as an MSME is by

operation of law and does not involve any action to be taken by

such an enterprise.

17. It is further submitted in the interregnum, the Ld. Resolution

Professional, applied for registration of the Corporate Debtor under

the Udyam Scheme of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

Development Act, 2006 (MSMEs) that the registration of an

enterprise under the MSME Udyam scheme was not a mandatory

requirement in order for the enterprise to be termed as an MSME

until 26.06.2020 but thereafter the notification dated 26.06.2020

made it mandatory for the enterprises who fall under the criteria of

MSME's to apply for registration under the Udyam Scheme. Hence,

at the time of commencement of CIRP, the Corporate Debtor was

falling under the definition of MSME, but was not registered under

the Udyam Scheme so it was rightly applied by the Ld. Resolution

Professional.

18. it is imperative to point out here that the benefits of the Corporate

Debtor being an MSME are not only applicable to the Respondent

No. 2 /erstwhile promoters of a Corporate Debtor but to all

 Prospective Resolution Plan Applicants so it was registered by the

Ld. Resolution Professional to take the benefits for the company as

laid down in the MSME Scheme.

19. It is submitted that the reliance has been placed by the Applicant

herein on the Judgment of Harkirat Sinqh Bedi v. Oriental Bank

of Commerce (2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 4) passed by the Hon'ble

NCLAT is misplaced in light of the fact that the erstwhile promoter

of the Corporate Debtor in the said case, was a willful defaulter and

tried to circumvent the provisions of the Code by making an

application for registration of the Corporate Debtor as an MSME.

However, in the present case, the Respondent No.2 herein has not

been declared as wilful defaulter. Thus, the said cannot be relied

upon the facts and circumstances of the present case.

20. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble NCLT, Kochi Bench in the

matter of K. Satheesh Babu Rajesh versus Mr. George Vru key

(IA no. 64/KOB/2021 in CP(IB) No. 52/KOB/2019) has directed

the Ld. Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor to register

the Corporate Debtor as an MSME under the Code, since the

Corporate Debtor fulfilled the criteria of being an MSME as per the

new definition, introduced by the Notification of 2020.

21. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention here that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) Nos 9852-

9853 OF 2021 titled as Sidharth Chauhan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Of

Delhi) during the course of hearing on 08.08.2022, was of the view

that the Respondent No.2 herein should come up with a workable

solution for the completion and delivery of both the projects at the
 B
earliest and further vide the said order, liberty was also granted to

the homebuyers to place suggestions for the resolution of dispute.

A true copy of the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) Nos 9852-9853 OF

2021 titled as Sidharth Chauhan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-2

22. In light of the above, it is most humbly submitted that the

application being l.A. No. 3024 of 2022 is frivolous just to stall both

the projects, and the Applicant herein is not entitled to any relief in

the present application. Hence the same ought to be dismissed with

exemplary costs.

ubmitted by

Shiv Manga1Jharn&7aurabh Rajpal

Advocates
D-291, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-i i0024
E Mail:-aura1eaguegmail.com
Mob:-7042700 133
12/07/2022. 18:36 Sidharthagroup.com Mail Fwd: I-tome Buyers comments on the CD plan and suitable amendiçts_should be done before
4

a
Sidhartha Chauhan <cmdsidharthaqroup.com>

Fwd: Home Buyers comments on the CD plan and suitable amendments hould
be done before voting
1 message

Devendra Singh <cirp.sbpl@gmail.com> Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 2:23 PM

To: sidhartha chauhan <cmd©sidharthagroup.com>

You are requested to take note of the attached document and submit the reply.

Forwarded message --
From: Rupesh K Sharma <rupesh_1973yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Home Buyers comments on the CD plan and suitable amendments should be done before voting
To: Devendra Singh <cirp,sbplgmail.com>, Dharmendra Kumar <arsbpl717gmail.com>
Cc: Krishan Lal Saluja <klsalujagmail.com>, R.K. Dua <rkdonhinegmail.com>, Rupesh Sharma
<rupeshsharmmagmail.com>

Dear Sir, Find attached the observations made on the plan through our legal experts. Your good self is requested to
share the same with the CD urgently.

CD should incorporate suitable clarifications and amendments in the plan accordingly, and then only the plan should
be placed for voting.

I would appreciate it if you could also comment on the same related to the provision of IBC observations.

Regards
Rupesh Sharma
Flat no. C-1102
Estella
ph. 9821591771

Thanks & Regards,

DEVENDRA SINGH
RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL
In the matter of Sidhartha Builditome Private Limited

(Undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process)

REGN. NO: IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N0000I/2016-17/1 0001

ADDRESS: Assotech Business Cresterra

Office No.216, 2nd Floor, Tower-I, Sector-135,

Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201305

MAIL ID : cirp.sbpl@gmail.com; dev_singh2006yahoo.com

1/2
12107/2022, 18:36 Sidharthagroup.com Mail - Fwd: Home Buyers comments on the CD plan and suitable amendments should be done before

MOBILE: 9810331877, 9810339416 d

(a.

HOME BUYERS COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTION PLAN.docx

32K

2/2
 1
1t_c- -5L
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.16 SECTION Il-C

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Cr1.) No(s). 9852-

9853/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2021

in BA No. 2722/2021 13-12-2021 in BA No. 2746/2021 passed by the
High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

SIDHARTH CHAUHAN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent(s)

IA No. 165566/2021 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 165567/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 44447/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION

IA No. 62560/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT

IA No. 9438/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 8609/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA NO.103576/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT

IA No. 12677/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS! FACTS/AN N EXURES
IA No. 165800/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUM EN IS! FACTS/ANN EXU RES )

Date : 08-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sourabh Rajpal, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv.
Mr. Santosh kumar, Adv.
Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv.
Ms. Shriyan khosla, Adv
Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv.
Sgntr No Venlied
M/S. Aura & Co., AOR
Di VTTVreb
ASHA SUN SAL
DIe 20 505

Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Ld. ASG

Mr. Sanjay kumar Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.
Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Adit khorana, Adv.
 2

Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv.

Mr. Tathagat, Adv.
Ms. ianhvi. Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR

Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, AOR

Mr. Vivek Beniwal, Adv.
Mr. Ashwin Garg, Adv.
Mr. Avneesh kumar, Adv.
Mr. karan Shankar Mani, Adv.

Mr. Ajay Laroia, Adv.

Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR
Mr. Rajinder kumar, Adv.

Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Anup kumar, AOR

Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv.

Mrs. J. Mohan, Adv.

Mr. Vipin Kumar Jal, AOR

Mr. Shiv kumar Vats, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Applications for permission to file additional

documents/facts/annexures, and exemption from filing

c/c of the impugned judgment are allowed.

IA No. 62560/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT

IA No. 9438/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 8609/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA NO.103576/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT

The applications for impleadment are allowed.

Let the impleaded parties file counter affidavits to

the petition for Special Leave to Appeal.

In the event any of the impleaded parties have any

suggestion for resolution of the dispute out of which

 3
13
the present proceedings arise, the same may be placed

to the client of Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior

counsel through his Advocate on Record.

Let counter affidavits be filed within a period of

two weeks.

List on 19.09.2022.

IA No. 44447/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION

The application for intervention is allowed.

(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID)

ASh. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)