SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) – Respondent
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
Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Ram Kishore Arora and others
Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and another
Vodafone International Holdings BV vs. Union of India and another
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) vs. Abhilash Lal and others
Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and others
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni and another
RPS Infrastructure Limited vs. Mukul Kumar and another
BRS Ventures Investments Limited vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited and another
Corporation of India vs. Escorts Ltd. and others
ArcelorMittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and others
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 cha....
The court emphasized that insolvency proceedings should not be exploited to evade liabilities, confirming the necessity to protect homebuyers' interests and investigate corporate fraud.
The court established that insolvency processes for real estate should be project-specific, protecting homebuyers and ensuring fair treatment of creditors.
The court emphasized that reverse CIRP cannot be used to evade liabilities, and the interests of homebuyers must be prioritized in insolvency proceedings.
A resolution plan must value all assets of the corporate debtor, including third-party interests, to ensure fair treatment of secured creditors.
CIRP initiated by homebuyers of one real estate project against developer must be confined to that project only, not extended corporate-wide, to protect other projects and stakeholders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.