Greater Noida Industrial Development ... vs Mr. Devashis Nanda Resolution ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2136 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1872, 2870 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority ...Appellants Through Its Manager (Builder)

Versus Devashis Nanda, ...Respondents RP for Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. U.N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Sarthak Bhnadari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates for RP/ R1.

Ms. Anuja Pethia and Mr. Rishabh Govila, Advocates for SRA.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2179 of 2024

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

Present: For Appellant : Mr. U.N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advocates.

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

Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Advocates for RA. ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

11.09.2025: CA (AT)(Ins) No. 2136 of 2024

This appeal has been filed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development

Authority challenging the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority in IA No. 1449/2022. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that he

is challenging by this appeal the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the

Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 2439/2024 which was IA filed by the

appellant objecting to the resolution plan.

2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are; the CIRP against

the Corporate Debtor commenced by the order of the Adjudicating Authority

dated 22.03.2021; appellant submitted its proofs of claim for Rs.

45,80,74,381/-. In the CIRP, plan was submitted by the Respondent No.2, in

the plan initially appellant was propose amount of Rs.1.5 crores,

subsequently addendum has come by the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhjit Singh Soni

addendum was submitted by the SRA where the amount propose to appellant

was Rs.16.50 crores. Appellant filed the objection to the resolution plan by IA

No. 2439/2024 objecting to the plan and submitting that the payout to the

appellant is not an according to the Section 30(2) hence the plan needs to be

rejected. Adjudicating Authority heard the application/objections filed by the

appellant as well as plan approval application by order of the same date,

rejected the IA No. 2439/2024 and approved the resolution plan of the CD.

Page 2 of 6 CA (AT)(Ins) Nos. 2136 of 2024 & 2179 of 2024 Aggrieved by the order rejecting the objections of the appellant, this appeal

has been filed.

3. We have heard Shri U.N. Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant

and Shri Sumant Batra, Ld. Counsel representing RP and Ld. Counsel for the

SRA.

4. Shri U.N. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order

submits that the payout to the appellant is not in accordance with 30(2). It is

submitted that the valuation of the corporate debtor was also not correctly

appreciated and the liquidation value of the operational creditor has been

mentioned as nill. He further submitted that under the plan the proceeds of

Section 66 application has been assigned to the SRA whereas the said

amount ought to come to creditors. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further

submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has not accepted the premiums as

CIRP costs during the CIRP period to which appellant was entitled.

5. Ld. Counsel for the RP submits that the plan submitted was in

compliance of Section 30(2) and the pay out to the appellant has been given

as secured creditors and actually the amount paid to the appellant is more

than the financial creditors. Hence the appellant cannot have any grievance

with regard to payout under the plan.

6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

7. The Adjudicating Authority in para-10 of the order had made following

observations:-

Page 3 of 6

CA (AT)(Ins) Nos. 2136 of 2024 & 2179 of 2024 "In the backdrop of the aforementioned judicial decisions, we note that in the present case the GNIDA has been paid an amount of Rs. 16.50 crores as against admitted claim of Rs. 26,45,49,297/-, whereas the secured financial creditor- Canara Bank has been provided Rs.11,00,00,000/- as against the admitted claim of Rs.41,61,01,637/-. The other two financial creditors i.e., IDBI Bank has been provided Rs.11,50,000/- as against the admitted claim of Rs.76,72,569/-whereas Bank of Baroda has been provided Rs.15,00,000/- as against the admitted claim of Rs.96,04,769/-."

8. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhjit Singh Soni

the appellant is to be treated as secured creditor by virtue of Section 13A of

'The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976'. The effect of said

is that the appellant is to receive the amount equal to the secured financial

creditors. The resolution plan proposes the payment of Rs.16.50 crores

against the admitted claim of Rs. 26,45,49,297/- which payout is more than

the secured financial creditor as have been notice in para-10.

9. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the payout of the

appellant is in accordance with the law. Coming to the submission of the

appellant regarding valuation, valuation was conducted as per Regulation 35

of 'CIRP Regulation' and which has been accepted by the CoC and plan have

been submitted relying on the said valuation. The issue of valuation cannot

be allowed to be considered at the time of approval of the resolution plan. In

so far as submission of the appellant that premium became due during the

CIRP period he was entitled to receive the same as CIRP cost, the issue is fully

covered by in recent judgment of this Tribunal dated 17.07.2025 in The

Authorised Representative of Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. Ms. Rakesh Page 4 of 6 CA (AT)(Ins) Nos. 2136 of 2024 & 2179 of 2024 Verma Vs. Mr. Devender Singh in CA (AT)(Ins) No. 1479 of 2024 and judgment

of this Tribunal in Sunil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. vs. Annad Sonbhadra RP of

Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in CA (AT)(Ins) No. 1351 of 2022. This

Tribunal in The Authorised Representative of Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Ms. Rakesh Verma Vs. Mr. Devender Singh has considered the issue of

premium which falls due during the CIRP and hence laid down following

paragraph-25:-

"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 19 th and 20th instalment, if it is held as CIRP cost in Civil Appeal No. 901 of 2023. We, thus answer Issue No. I accordingly."

10. The submission of the appellant is that premium became due during

the CIRP period the appellant is also entitled for the same treatment as was

given in The Authorised Representative of Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. In

view of the aforesaid, we thus do not find any ground to interfere with the

Page 5 of 6 CA (AT)(Ins) Nos. 2136 of 2024 & 2179 of 2024 order dated 09.07.2025 rejecting the IA filed by the appellant. However, in so

far as the premium during the CIRP period and other charges as held in The

Authorised Representative of Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. appellant shall

be entitled for the same treatment as noticed in the paragraph-25 above. The

Appeal is disposed of in the same manner as in para 25 of the judgment dated

17.07.2025.

11. In so far as submission of the appellant that with regard to proceeds of

Section 66 the same could not have been assigned to the SRA suffice to say

that the said assignment is with the decision of the CoC which is in the

commercial wisdom which cannot be allowed to be interfered.

CA (AT)(Ins) No. 2179 of 2024

As prayed, list high on board on 12.09.2025.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

Page 6 of 6 CA (AT)(Ins) Nos. 2136 of 2024 & 2179 of 2024