JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

Hardly six years old, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as the ") continues to be a fertile ground to spawn litigation. Born in the year 2016, the IBC this time around has given rise to the question as to whether the appellant would be a financial creditor and entitled to be so treated in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP, in short) commenced against the corporate debtor under the 'IBC '.

THE APPEALS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2222/2021

2. The appellant 'NOIDA' initially submitted Form 'B' and claimed as an operational creditor in regard to the dues outstanding under the lease. Subsequently the appellant filed a claim in Form 'C' and claimed as a financial creditor. There was some correspondence which reveals that the appellant insisted upon being treated as a financial creditor. Finally, the matter was considered by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) which held that there was no financial lease in terms of the Indian Accounting Standards and there was no financial debt. By the impugned order, NCLAT has affirmed the view taken by the NCLT. Hence the appeal.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2367-2369 OF 2021

3. The appellant in 2222 of 2021 is the appellant in this case also. The appeal is filed against an interim order passed by the NCLAT staying the order passed by the NCLT. By the order passed by the NCLT, the appellant herein was directed to be admitted as a financial creditor and adjudicating authority also directed to admit the whole of the claim of the appellant. In view of the order passed, which is the subject matter of C.A. No. 2222/2021, NCLAT found it fit to pass an order staying the order passed by the NCLT. Hence the appeals.

4. Since a common question arises namely whether the appellant is entitled to be treated as a financial creditor within the meaning of the IBC, we are rendering the common judgment.

5. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, Learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant in C.A. No. 2222/2021 and Smt. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant in C.A. No. 2367-2369/2021. We have also heard Shri RitinRai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in CA 2222/2021. Besides we heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel who was allowed to intervene in the matter on the basis that there is a case involving the appellant NOIDA which is pending consideration. We also heard Shri Devashish Bharuka on behalf of the first respondent in CA. Nos. 2367-2369/2021.

THE LEASE

6. The terms of the lease are as found in CA. No. 2222/2021. The lease was entered into on the 30th day of July, 2010. The appellant is the lessor described as the Authority under Section 3 of the UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT , 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UPIAD Act'). The lease deed recites that the leasehold property forms part of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and developed by the lessor for the purposes of setting up of an 'Urban and Industrial Township'. The purpose of the lease is the construction of the residential flats according to the setback and building plan approved by the appellant. The lessee earned its right as lessee under the process of two bid tender system in favour of a consortium of which it is a member. The lease deed provides that the shareholding of the lessor shall remain unchanged till the temporary occupancy/completion