NCLT Rules IL&FS Can Unilaterally Hike Price in BKC Tower Deal, Citing Contractual Supremacy

Mumbai, November 28, 2025 – In a significant ruling on the sanctity of contracts within corporate resolution frameworks, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, has held that Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) was within its rights to unilaterally increase the sale price of its prime property, the IL&FS Financial Centre in Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC).

The bench, comprising Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Shri Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member), ruled that despite a Letter of Intent (LoI) being a "concluded contract," specific clauses within it empowered IL&FS to amend the terms to achieve "value maximization." The tribunal rejected the plea by the successful bidder, Chronos Properties Private Limited, to enforce the original sale price of ₹1,080 crores, upholding IL&FS's revised demand of ₹1,481 crores.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case revolves around the sale of the IL&FS Financial Centre, a key asset monetization effort under the IL&FS Resolution Framework approved by the NCLAT in 2020. Chronos Properties emerged as the successful bidder with an offer of ₹1,080 crores. A Letter of Intent was executed on March 21, 2022, after securing approvals from the IL&FS Committee of Creditors, its new board, and retired Justice D.K. Jain.

Chronos furnished a performance guarantee of ₹108 crores (10% of the consideration) and awaited the final execution of the definitive agreement. However, after obtaining the final approval from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) in July 2024, IL&FS issued a letter on August 16, 2024, unilaterally amending the LoI to increase the sale price to ₹1,481 crores, citing a substantial increase in the property's market value.

Aggrieved, Chronos approached the NCLT, seeking to quash the price hike and compel IL&FS to complete the sale at the originally agreed price.

---

Clash of Arguments: Contractual Finality vs. Value Maximization

The case presented a classic legal battle between the principle of contractual certainty and the objectives of a resolution process.

Chronos Properties' Stance: Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas, representing Chronos, argued that the LoI was a concluded and enforceable contract, containing all essential terms like property identification, consideration, and timelines. He contended that IL&FS's power to amend the LoI under Clause 3.6(h) was not absolute. The phrase "for any other similar reasons" should be interpreted narrowly ( ejusdem generis ) and linked to new reports submitted to authorities, which IL&FS had not done. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Valji Khimji , he argued that allowing such post-approval price hikes would undermine the finality of any auction process, turning "value maximization" into a "shifting goalpost."

IL&FS's Counter-Argument: Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina, for IL&FS, countered that the core mandate of the IL&FS resolution is maximizing asset value in the public interest. He argued that Clause 3.6(h) explicitly granted IL&FS the unilateral right to amend the LoI to meet this objective. Crucially, he pointed to Clause 5.1(6), which provided Chronos with a clear remedy: if it found the new financial obligations unacceptable, it had the right to terminate the LoI and receive a full refund of its performance guarantee. Since Chronos did not terminate the agreement, it was bound by the amendment.

---

Tribunal's Analysis: Contract is King

The NCLT dissected the LoI to deliver a nuanced verdict, making key determinations on three central issues.

1. LoI is a Concluded Contract: The tribunal first sided with Chronos on the nature of the LoI, holding that it was indeed a binding contract and not merely an "agreement to agree." The judgment noted: > "The LoI in question is in fact the transaction between the Parties or an agreement between the Parties for the sale of the property and therefore, all the essentials of valid contract between the parties are fulfilled... It has a binding nature of expression of understanding between the Parties."

2. Unilateral Right to Amend Upheld: However, the tribunal found the contractual terms themselves to be the deciding factor. It held that the combined reading of Clause 3.6(h) and Clause 5.1(6) created a specific, agreed-upon mechanism that allowed IL&FS to amend the price and gave Chronos the option to exit. The tribunal observed: > "The Parties have consciously agreed that in spite of there being contract between the parties... the unilateral power to amend and re-assess the property was retained by the IL&FS... To accept the contention of the Ld. Counsel for Chronos... would amount to interpreting clause 3.6 (h) and 5.1(6) contrary to the agreement between the parties."

The bench concluded that enforcing the original price would amount to rewriting the contract, which is beyond the tribunal's powers.

3. No Disqualification for Expired Guarantee: On a related application by IL&FS to disqualify Chronos for letting its performance guarantee expire, the tribunal ruled in favor of Chronos. It noted Chronos's "bonafide conduct" in offering to deposit the guarantee with the tribunal pending the dispute's resolution. However, it directed Chronos to tender the guarantee with the NCLT Registrar within 30 days to avoid future disqualification.

---

Final Verdict and Implications

The NCLT disposed of all applications with the following key directives: - The LoI is a concluded contract . - IL&FS has the unilateral right to amend the LoI as per its terms, and the price hike letter of August 16, 2024, is valid. - Chronos is not disqualified but must furnish the performance guarantee within 30 days.

This judgment serves as a critical reminder that while general legal principles like the finality of auctions are important, the specific, mutually agreed-upon terms of a contract will ultimately govern the rights and obligations of the parties, especially within the unique context of court-monitored resolution processes.