2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1594
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Maha Hotel Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 30461 of 2025
Decided On : 20-11-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VANAPARTHI VAISHALI
For the Respondent: GP FOR TOURISM
The court reaffirmed that provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 operate with overriding authority, especially regarding contractual obligations and state consent, nullifying previous rights without due process only under specified statutory conditions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 300A - Writ Petition challenging empowerment committee's decision as arbitrary and against FDI policy - Rights accrued under a project agreement cannot be revoked without due process and compensation - Previous approvals and insolvency resolutions establish the binding nature of contractual obligations. (Paras 1, 6, 10)
(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Resolution Plan - Consent from State Government for modification of shareholding as per approved Plan - Provisions of IBC override inconsistent state laws and established rights, necessitating judicial compliance within statutory frameworks. (Paras 6, 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, being the lead developer in a consortium for a five-star hotel project, contends that the State's decision to transfer project rights to another entity without notice or compensation violated constitutional rights and the FDI policy. (Paras 2, 2.8)
Findings of Court:
The decision of the Empowered Committee was deemed to adhere to legal provisions with no merit found in allegations of arbitrariness or lack of process. The petitioner’s previous legal challenges against similar issues were settled against them. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the Empowered Committee’s decision to issue consent for project transfer was arbitrary and unconstitutional, and if it violated procedural rights under the FDI policy. (Paras 1, 3, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the terms of a NCLT-approved Resolution Plan are binding, and any claims related to rights must align with statutory obligations under the IBC, nullifying prior entitlements. (Paras 7, 10)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed with costs payable to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. project background and development details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's challenges to the transfer process. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents' defense and procedural arguments. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's analysis on insolvency code applicability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. final judgment and orders issued. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the decision taken by Empowered Committee (Tourism) of the State of Telangana in its meeting dated 22.09.2025 as arbitrary and unconstitutional; and to further declare that the accrued right of Petitioner cannot be taken by Respondents 1, 2 and 3 without following procedure established by law and without compensating for the same and to further declare that such consent will be in violation of the Consolidated FDI Policy of India and also to direct Respondents 6 and 7 not to allow FDI in Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited by Respondent No.4 in violation of the Consolidated FDI Policy of India.
2. The facts of the case are :
Petitioner is the lead developer of consortium to which State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) awarded project for construction, development and operation of a 5-Star Hotel at Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 is the State of Telangana through the Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture Department that owns the project and floated the tender for the execution. Respondent No.2 is Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation which is a State Government undertaking and has been nominated by the State Government to represent Respondent No.1 for legal purposes. Respondent No.3 is the Empowered Committee (Tourism) of the State of Telangana comprising of the Deputy Chief Minister & Minister of Finance, Minister for Tourism & Culture and Minister for IT, Industries & Commerce, which was tasked with taking the decision on the representation of Respondent No.4 for taking over the project. Respondent No.4 is to whom the project has now been awarded by the State Government and it was the successful resolution applicant in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Petitioner's project company. Respondent No.5 is a registered Society under the State of Telangana which granted additional land for construction and development of the project. Respondent No.6 is Reserve Bank of India. Respondent No.7 is the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
2.1. It is further stated that Respondent No.1 floated a tender for 'Five Star Hotel Project', whereby the successful bidder was to develop, finance, build, operate and transfer a Five Star Hotel on land leased by Respondents 1 and 5 against payment of a monthly lease and development premium. Further clarifications on the terms of the RFP were provided in pre-bid meetings. It was clarified in the pre-bid meetings that a separate Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company was needed for maintenance of separate books of account to arrive at gross turnover for calculating additional development premium. Thus, SPV i.e. M/s. Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. executed Lease Deed and Development & Management Agreement, both dated 09.05.2007, with Respondent No.1 for construction and development of the Hotel Project.
2.2. Petitioner further states that leader of consortium and financially significant member transferred their shareholding i.e. 84% shareholding to their company, which was recognized as the Lead Developer of the Project by Respondent No.1. Remaining 16% shareholding was held by M/s EIH Ltd., the technical member of the consortium. That part of the project land belongs to Respondent No.5 with which a separate lease agreement was entered for the purpose of the project. It is further stated, on 08.12.2008, Respondent No.1 approved the revised DPR for the project in which it was mentioned that Petitioner company is the venture company of My Home Group for this project and that they had mobilized the required 21 resources for the project. Respo