Greater Noida Industrial Development ... vs Ca Anil Matta Resolution Professional ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Through Its Manager (Builder) ...Appellant Versus CA Anil Matta, RP for Primrose Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. U.N. Singh, Advocate.

For Respondents : Ms. Anuja Pethia and Mr. Rishabh Govila, Advocates for RP.

Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Advocates for RA.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

12.09.2025 : Heard learned counsel Mr. U.N. Singh appearing for

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as well as learned counsel

appearing for the RP and the SRA.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated

28.08.2024 passed in I.A. No.2732/2024, by which order, the I.A. filed by the

appellant has been disposed of. Adjudicating authority in the impugned order

has observed that amount due to the applicant has been duly considered in

the resolution plan as per the provisions of the Court, hence the application

is disposed of.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that

the applicant in the application has also prayed for treating the amount due

and payable during the CIRP as CIRP cost, which prayers have not been granted by the adjudicating authority. Learned counsel for the appellant

further submitted that as far as the payment and the plan, the appellant has

been proposed Rs.55,46,74,874/- as a full claim.

4. Learned counsel for the RP submits that insofar as the CIRP cost, the

issue is fully covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of 'The

Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Private Limited'

Vs. 'Devendra Singh & Ors.' in [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1479/2024]

decided on 17.07.2025, wherein the CIRP cost has been dealt in paragraph

25. He submits that this appeal also needs to be disposed of in the same

terms.

5. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

6. Insofar as the claim of the appellant, the resolution plan has satisfied

the entire claim which is recorded in the impugned order by the adjudicating

authority in paragraph 5.

7. In the application which was filed by the appellant, following prayers

were made:

"a. Allow the present application;

b. Direct the Respondent- Resolution Professional to make the provisions for payment of amounts due and payable towards the outstanding dues which have become due during CIRP. or c. Direct that the outstanding dues of applicant, which have become due during CIRP will be covered under the definition of Insolvency Resolution Process Cost as defined under Section 5(13) of the Code read with Regulation 31 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 d. Pass any such other order/direction which it may deem fit in the interest of justice."

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2179 of 2024 2 of 4

8. In 'The Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties

Private Limited' (supra), we have dealt with the claim during the CIRP period

and relying on the earlier judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of 'Sunil

Kumar Agrawal' Vs. 'New Okhla Industrial Development Authority' in

[Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.622 of 2022], has taken a view that against the

judgment of 'Sunil Kumar Agrawal' (supra) the matter is pending in the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 901/2023 and the order which

was passed, Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all concern.

9. Learned counsel for the SRA and RP submits that this appeal also needs

to be disposed of in the same terms as in paragraph 25 of the 'The

Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Private Limited'

(supra) which is to the following effect:

"25. The judgment of this Tribunal in Sunil Kumar Agrawal is a judgment of Coordinate Bench which reject the claim of treating lease premium as CIRP cost. We, sitting in the Coordinate Bench of two-member bench, feel ourselves bound by the said judgment. We, however, hasten to add that in view of the protection which has been given in Civil Appeal No.901 of 2023, NOIDA is also entitled to similar protection. In case, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the lease premium is a CIRP cost, as contemplated in order dated 17.02.2023, the amount of 19th and 20th instalment, as is claimed by the NOIDA, shall be payable by SRA. The resolution plan which shall henceforth be submitted for consideration as per the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting the resolution plan for consideration, there need to be undertaking to the above effect by the Resolution Applicant who has to pay the aforesaid 19th and 20th instalment, if it is held as CIRP cost in Civil Appeal No.901 of 2023. We, thus answer Issue No. I accordingly."

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2179 of 2024 3 of 4

10. We thus are of the view that order passed by the adjudicating authority

dated 28.08.2024 needs no interference except that with regard to the prayers

made in the application regarding the claim during the CIRP.

11. The impugned order is modified and the present appeal is also disposed

of accordingly in the same terms of the judgment in para 25 of the 'The

Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Private Limited'

(supra).

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2179 of 2024 4 of 4