Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 487

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1526 OF 2023 with C.A. No. 1743 of 2023 C.A. No. 2491 of 2023 C.A. No. 2466 of 2023 C.A. Nos. 2406-2407 of 2023 C.A. No. 3438 of 2023 C.A. Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 C.A. No. 2756 of 2023 C.A. No. 2763 of 2023 C.A. No. 4619 of 2023 and C.A.(Diary) No. 19132 of 2023
Decided On : 05-05-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited (CA 1526/2023) : Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria, Adv. Ms. Vatsala Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv.
For Roma Unicon Designex Consortium (SRA of Earth Infra Limited) (CA 2491/2023) : Mr. Somesh Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, AOR Mr. Nand Kishor Jha, Adv. Mr. Satyam Sinha, Adv. Ms. Vagisha Kashyap, Adv.
Sanjay Bhalla (CA 1743/2023) : Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Anshuman Sharma, Adv.
Earth Property Buyers Association (Diary No. 19132/2023) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Prity Kumari, Adv. Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR
for Unific Techone Patrons Independent Association (UTOPIA) (CA 4619/2023) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR Mr. Shashank Raghav, Adv. Ms. Shubhangini Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bhati, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha, Adv.
Earth United Consumer Association (CA 3435-3437/2023) : Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ritik Sharma, Adv.
For Earth Copia Owners Society (CA 3438/2023) : Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.M. Kannan, AOR Mr. Mayank Singh, Adv.
Earth Infra Ltd. (CA 2406-2407/2023) : Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ekansh Mishra, AOR
Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association (CA 2466/2023) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. Vastala Kak, Adv. Mr. Nishant Rao, Adv. Mr. Naman Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kavya Tekriwal, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Adv. Mr. Sagar Thakkar, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR
GNOIDA (CA 2756/2023) : Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Anshuman Sharma, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR
FOR GNOIDA Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ekansh Mishra, AOR Mr. Gunjan Kumar, AOR Mr. Somesh Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. Vastala Kak, Adv. Mr. Nishant Rao, Adv. Mr. Naman Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kavya Tekriwal, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Adv. Mr. Sagar Thakkar, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria, Adv. Ms. Vatsala Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv. Ms. Neelu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kartik Hooda, Adv. Mr. E. Vinay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Makhija, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Balasaheb Raut, AOR Mr. Sonit Sinhmar, Adv. Mr. Bhupender Dalal, Adv. Ms. Sunayana Pawar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, AOR Mr. Prashant Jain, Adv. Mr. Varun Garg, Adv. Mr. Shubham Paliwal, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Phul, Adv. Ms. Komal Bihani, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rupam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. M/s. Aura & Co., AOR Ms. Anuja Pethia, AOR Mr. Noor Shergill, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Nigam, Adv. Ms. Kshirja Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Govila, Adv. Ms. Amisha Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Prashant Jain, Adv. Mr. Varun Garg, Adv. Mr. Shubham Paliwal, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Phul, Adv. Ms. Komal Bihani, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rupam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Durga Dutt, AOR Mr. Priyanshu Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Adv. Mr. Susant Kumar Mallik, Adv. Mr. Rohit Priyadarshi, Adv. Mr. Devendra Rao Madhav, Adv. Mr. Amrendra Choubey, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Satya Kam Sharma , AOR Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Gunjan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Resolution Plan – Inertia on part of GNIDA and its failure to protect interests of home/office space buyers, apart from its own interests, clearly disentitles it from levying penal interest/penal charges/time-extension penalties.

Headnote:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 62 – Resolution Plan – Approval of – Scheme of policy/package envisages co-developers being given permission to complete projects after recognizing them in records of Authority concerned and, thereupon, responsibility for paying dues of said Authority and completing project would be jointly shared by co-developer and allottee – All outstanding amounts were to be re-verified by an independent chartered accountant/ third party and recalculated as per conditions of lease deed and orders issued by Authority from time to time – Time extension to complete project was to be given, free of cost, subject to a maximum period of three years – Inertia on part of GNIDA and its failure to protect interests of home/office space buyers, apart from its own interests, clearly disentitles it from levying penal interest/penal charges/time-extension penalties at this stage – However, notwithstanding lapses on its part, GNIDA would still be entitled to recover principal amounts due to it, after deducting penal interest, penal charges and time-extension penalties – Given the fact that GNIDA is responsible for this litigation to a great extent, owing to its failure in monitoring development of projects and in taking timely measures to realise its dues from EIL, it would not be entitled to any interest on principal amounts due for extended period of twenty four months, during which successful resolution applicants are required to clear its dues – Resolution plans restored. (Paras 65, 67 and 68)
Facts of the case:
By judgment dated 30.01.2023, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [NCLAT’], disposed of three company appeals filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), viz., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 180, 629 and 630 of 2022, and set aside the orders dated 05.04.2021, 08.06.2021 and 07.12.2021 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Bench III, New Delhi.
Findings of Court:
Several intervention applications were filed by home/office space buyers seeking to be heard. However, as their interests are sufficiently represented by associations which had participated in the proceedings before NCLAT, we are not inclined to entertain such individual intervention applications.
Result : Civil Appeals allowed in part.

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope to lift the corporate veil in CIRP proceedings where subsidiaries hold lease lands, and how does it affect GNIDA’s rights to dues?

What is the appropriate treatment of GNIDA’s penal interest/penal charges and time-extension penalties in light of GNIDA’s inertia, and how should dues be recalculated and allocated between GNIDA and the successful resolution applicants?

What conditions govern the transfer of leasehold lands to resolution applicants, and is GNIDA a necessary party to CIRP proceedings affecting those lands?

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. By judgment dated 30.01.2023, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [For short, ‘the NCLAT’], disposed of three company appeals filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), viz., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 180, 629 and 630 of 2022, and set aside the orders dated 05.04.2021, 08.06.2021 and 07.12.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench III, New Delhi [For short, ‘the NCLT’].

2. By the order dated 05.04.2021 passed in C.A. No. 751 of 2019 in CP(IB)-401(ND)/2017, the NCLT had approved the resolution plan submitted by Roma Unicon Designex Consortium (Roma). This order was challenged by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. By its order dated 08.06.2021 in IA No. 05 of 2020 in CP(IB)-401(ND)/2017, the NCLT had approved the resolution plan submitted by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited (Alpha). This order was assailed by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. By the order dated 07.12.2021 in IA No. 4235 of 2021 filed by Roma in CP(IB)-401(ND)/2017, the NCLT directed GNIDA to give effect to the resolution plan approved by it by the order dated 05.04.2021. This order was challenged before the NCLAT by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 180 of 2022.

3. Aggrieved by the NCLAT’s judgment dated 30.01.2023, the present appeals were filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [For short, ‘the Code’]. We may now note the details of these appeals. Civil Appeal Nos. 1526 and 1743 of 2023 were filed by Alpha and one Sanjay Bhalla respectively in so far as the judgment pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Roma and Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association filed Civil Appeal Nos. 2491 and 2466 of 2023 respectively against the judgment in the context of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. Civil Appeal Nos. 2406-2407 of 2023 were filed by Earth Infrastructures Limited, the corporate debtor (CD), against the judgment in the context of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 629 and 630 of 2022. Civil Appeal No. 3438 of 2023 was filed by Earth Copia Owners Society in relation to Company Appeal No. (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Civil Appeal Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 were filed by Earth United Consumer Association assailing the judgment apropos all three appeals. Civil Appeal No. 2756 of 2023 was filed by GNIDA aggrieved by denial of certain reliefs by the NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Civil Appeal No. 2763 was also filed by GNIDA on similar grounds in relation to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. Civil Appeal No. 4619 of 2023 was filed by Unific TechOne Patrons Independent Association (UTOPIA) against the judgment insofar as it pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Lastly, Earth Property Buyers Association filed Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 in relation to all three appeals.

4. As regards the appeals filed under Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 19132 of 2023, we find that there is a delay of 34 days in their filing. These appeals were filed only on 04.05.2023 against the judgment dated 30.01.2023. Section 62(2) of the Code empowers this Court to condone delay in filing up to 15 days but not more. These appeals are, thus, clearly barred by time and cannot be entertained. The appeals filed under Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 are, therefore, dismissed on this short ground.

5. By order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2023 and batch, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo.

6. The ostensible genesis of this litigation is the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) initiated by one Deepak Khanna, a financial creditor, against Earth Infrastructures Limited (EIL), the CD, vide Company Petition IB-401(ND)/2017, under Section 7 of the Code. However, long prior thereto, GNIDA, an authority constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, allotted 73,942 square

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 487

IMPORTANT POINTResolution Plan – Inertia on part of GNIDA and its failure to protect interests of home/office space buyers, apart from its own interests, clearly disentitles it from levying penal interest/penal charges/time-extension penalties.

What is the scope to lift the corporate veil in CIRP proceedings where subsidiaries hold lease lands, and how does it affect GNIDA’s rights to dues?

What is the appropriate treatment of GNIDA’s penal interest/penal charges and time-extension penalties in light of GNIDA’s inertia, and how should dues be recalculated and allocated between GNIDA and the successful resolution applicants?

What conditions govern the transfer of leasehold lands to resolution applicants, and is GNIDA a necessary party to CIRP proceedings affecting those lands?

Cases Referred (11)

Related Judgments

Alpha Corp Development Private Limited VS Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) - 2026 4 Supreme 355

Arena Superstructures Pvt Ltd vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2838

Deepak Sakharam Kulkarni & Anr. vs Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Resolution Professional of D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1256

Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association VS NBCC (INDIA) Ltd. - 2021 Supreme(SC) 165

NIVAYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED VS DIVYESH DESAI GPT Steel Industries Ltd.(RP) - 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 188

Amit Jain vs IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1468

Anand Murti VS Soni Infratech Private Limited - 2022 Supreme(SC) 403

Sequel Buildcon Private Limited vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2594

IFCI Ltd vs Raju Palanikunnathil Kesavan, RP of Heera Construction Co Pvt Ltd - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1479

Navin M. Raheja vs Shravan Minocha - 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 430

IMPORTANT POINT
Resolution Plan – Inertia on part of GNIDA and its failure to protect interests of home/office space buyers, apart from its own interests, clearly disentitles it from levying penal interest/penal charges/time-extension penalties.