9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clear that at no point of time, neither the Corporate Debtor has paid any rent/instalments after the cancellation of the Plot nor any such amount was accepted by the NOIDA. The other Clause under which case is sought to be covered i.e., or otherwise assent to this continuing in possession. There is nothing on the record to prove that NOIDA at any point of time assented to the continuing of the Corporate Debtor in possession . The right of the Corporate Debtor having come to an end after cancellation of the Plot, it cannot claim any rights nor it can claim itself to be a tenant holding over. Reference made to the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nand Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Jagdish Prasad through Legal Representative [ 2020 (3) TMI 1247 - SUPREME COURT ], in which case Hon ble Supreme Court came to consider the submissions made on the strength of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment has held that after expiry of the lease status of Lessee will be that of tenant of sufferance and not of tenant holding over. In the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, it was reiterated that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Lessee, which had to be in accordance with the Plan and directions issued by NOIDA Authority from time to time. Homebuyers are unsecured Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor who do not have any charge on the land. It is only the NOIDA Authority who has charge over assets under Section 13-A of the UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976. Under Section 14, which has been noticed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Bikram Chatterjee Ors. NOIDA Authority can cancel the Lease on breach committed by Lessee and resume the site on building and further forfeit the whole on any part of the money which paid in respect thereof. Order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, allowing I.A. No. 1592/ND/2019 for excluding the Plot SC-01/D-1, Sector 79, NOIDA is upheld - application filed by the RP under Section 30(6) for approval of the Resolution Plan is rejected. Appeal disposed off. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Aditya Nayyar , Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Aishwarya Prasad and Mr. Niraj Chamyal , Advocates for R - 2. Mr. Rachit Mittal , Advocate for R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P of the Corporate Debtor was submitted which included the plot in question which came to be approved by the CoC on 04.12.2019. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 20.02.2020 noticed the application IA No. 1592 of 2019 filed by the NOIDA apprising the Bench that the lease has already been cancelled and substratum of the Corporate Debtor s project is no more available and the plan has been approved by the CoC on the basis of the land belongs to the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority observed that despite knowing the lease has been cancelled, Director/ Shareholders continued to accumulate money by thereby duping several investors. The Adjudicating Authority declined to consider the Resolution Plan and directed the Directors of the Corporate Debtor to file an Affidavit on their personal assets including all their moveable and immovable assets. The Resolution Professional filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 605 of 2020 challenging the order dated 20.02.2020. This Tribunal held that the Appeal not maintainable, however, the Appeal was disposed of with direction to the Adjudicating Authority that it shall accord consideration to the matter in the light of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease but the fact that the Corporate Debtor continued in possession for more than five years and no action was taken by the NOIDA to take possession indicate that there is assent of the NOIDA in favour of the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that the conduct of the NOIDA lends support to the presumption that there is otherwise assent of the NOIDA to the Corporate Debtor. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the assent by NOIDA need not be in writing but such assent can be determined from the conduct that constitutes assent. It is submitted that much after the cancellation, a letter was issued to different entities in the NOIDA including the Corporate Debtor asking as to why lease be not cancelled which letter dated 17.03.2023 was also marked to the Corporate Debtor which indicate that NOIDA was not treating the lease to be cancelled even in the year 2023. Counsel submits that the principle of holding over as contained in Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is fully applicable in the facts of the present case and assets could not belong to the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that the IRP was entitled to take control of the assets in question by virtue of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present Appeal also deserves to be dismissed following the judgment of this Tribunal dated 01.05.2024. 6. Counsel for the Appellant in support of his submissions in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 506 of 2024 submitted that the homebuyers consent was never obtained nor informed about the cancellation of the plot in question. It is submitted that the Appellant is the homebuyers Association of the Corporate Debtor. Corporate Debtor had started taking booking for its flats in the year 2012 for the project and as per the homebuyer s agreement, the flats were to be delivered within 3 years from 31.07.2013. There are about 651 homebuyers in the project. The plan submitted by the Appellant was approved by the CoC on 04.12.2019 thereafter Resolution Professional has filed IA No. 1664 of 2019 for approval of the plan. It is submitted that the homebuyers have also filed Writ Petition being Writ-C No. 26400/2023 before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the cancellation of the lease where Hon ble High Court was passed an interim order on 09.08.2023 giving stay on creation of any third party rights. It is submitted that the NOIDA was duty bound for implementation of the project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and consequences thereof. In case of failure to deposit the due money within given time or such extended period as is allowed by NOIDA or commit any breach of the terms and conditions as laid down in the brochure, allotment/lease shall be liable to be cancelled/ determined and 30% of the total premium together with lease rent, interest, extension charges or money deposited, whichever is less shall be forfeited in favour of NOIDA. Balance amount, if any, after forfeiting the amount as indicated above, will be refunded without interest. Possession of the plot, along with the structures, if any, thereon, shall be resumed in favour of NOIDA and the lessee shall not be entitled to claim any compensation for the same. Since, you have not complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment/ lease deed, regarding payment of due amount, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the brochure of the scheme and lease deed, Authority cancels the allotment and forfeiture of deposited amount. Therefore, you are requested to kindly hand over the possession to the concern Project Engineer of NOIDA within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al (AT) (Insolvency) No. 605 of 2020 vide order dated 27.07.2020, we have no other option but to conclude that there is nothing placed or produced on record by the Respondent/RP, COC, SRA, or anyone else, which could depict that the lease of project plot is in existence post- 13.08.2015. Even otherwise, though the RP is claiming to have possession over the cancelled plot of the project, he has failed to bring any evidence on record in support of payment of any land dues or lease rentals of the Project Plot to the NOIDA Authority. In other words, the lease deed or allotment of the Project Plot No. GH-SC- 01/D-1, Sector 79 Noida stood cancelled with effect from 13.08.2015. In view of the above, the property situated at Plot No. SC-01/D1, Sector 79, Noida cannot be made part of the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor and accordingly, the Respondent/RP is directed to exclude the same from the Resolution Plan. Ordered accordingly. 10. Submission which has been pressed by the Counsel for the CoC is that the Corporate Debtor having continued in possession even after cancellation of the Lease Deed, the Corporate Debtor is a tenant holding over by virtue of Section 116 of the Transfer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h provide that after determination of the lease when rent is accepted, the tenant will be tenant in holding over and consequence are provided thereunder. Second clause that or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession clearly means that lessor assent to continuation in possession of lease. The expression assent has been defined in Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar s, 6th Edition as agreement, approval or permission which reads as follows:- The ordinary grammatical meaning of the word 'assent is expression of approval or agreement. [Concise Oxford English Dictionary as cited in R.S. Iron Industries Pvt Lid v Calcutta Pinkjrapole Society, AIR 2013 Cal 94, para 11]. A passive act of concurrence; the act of the mind in admit- ting or agreeing to anything; the act of agreeing or consenting to accept proposition, and by context, acceptance. Agreement or approval; compliance, approval of something done, or a declaration of willingness to do something in compliance with a request; concurrence in, or with; consent; silent acquiescence, Assent implies knowledge of some kind in the party assenting to that to which he assents; also permission of the part of the loyalty assen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the NOIDA on the basis of which it can be concluded that the NOIDA has been given its assent impliedly for continuance of Corporate Debtor in possession. 15. Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Ram Hari Singh vs. Tirtha Pada Misra- AIR 1957 Cal 173 in which judgment the Hon ble Calcutta High Court has occasion to consider Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. In paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, following has been laid down:- 8. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act runs thus: If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under- lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106 . 9. From the express terms of the section, it is obvious that mere continuance of possession after the expiry or determination of his lease would not entitle the tenant to claim a tena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd continues in wrong and is thus wrongful both in its inception and in its continuance, the quondam tenant's possession having had, on the other hand, a lawful origin, though continuing in wrong after the termination of the lease and thus being rightful in its origin or Inception, though wrongful in its continuance , but the landlord's assent would convert this wrongful possession into a rightful one and as I have already said, when this possession is suffered long without protest, very slight evidence may be sufficient to raise the necessary inference of assent on the landlord's part. [See in this connection Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, 25th Edition, (1951) 312; see also Kantheppa v. Sheshappa, (5) (1.L.R. 22 Bom. 893, at page 898]. 16. Learned Counsel for the Committee of Creditors (`CoC ) to support his submission that Corporate Debtor was a tenant holding over has relied on an Application given under the Right to Information Act (`RTI ) by one of the homebuyers and the Reply given by NOIDA dated 02.08.2017. It is submitted that in the Application under the RTI several questions were asked with regard to Group Housing Plot SC-01/D-1, Sector 79, NOIDA. In Reply t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be raised by the Appellant. Now coming to the Application given under the RTI and the Reply given by the NOIDA, it is true that NOIDA in the Reply has given about the balance dues upto 05.07.2017, but has not informed about the cancellation of the Plot. There being letter of the Corporate Debtor 14.06.2016 praying for restoration, there can t be any doubt regarding cancellation of the Plot. 20. It is further relevant to Notice that Adjudicating Authority in its Order dated 12.10.2020, which was passed in the proceeding in question while considering I.A. No. 1592/2019 directed the NOIDA to take decision on the representation dated 14.06.2016 submitted by the Corporate Debtor for restoration of the Plot. The Order dated 12.10.2020 has been brought on the record in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 506/2024. The Order dated 12.10.2020 in I.A. No. 1592/2019 is as follows: IA/1592/2019: Counsels for the Applicant/Noida Authority, Resolution Professional, Resolution Applicant and the CoC are present. As seen from the last Order dated 09.09.2020, a specific direction was given to the Noida Authority to place on record the decision of the Noida Authority on the representation of the Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be holding over the Plot under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. From the facts which have been noticed above, it is clear that at no point of time, neither the Corporate Debtor has paid any rent/instalments after the cancellation of the Plot nor any such amount was accepted by the NOIDA. The other Clause under which case is sought to be covered i.e., or otherwise assent to this continuing in possession. There is nothing on the record to prove that NOIDA at any point of time assented to the continuing of the Corporate Debtor in possession . The right of the Corporate Debtor having come to an end after cancellation of the Plot, it cannot claim any rights nor it can claim itself to be a tenant holding over. 25. We may refer to the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of `Nand Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. `Jagdish Prasad through Legal Representative reported in (2020) 9 SCC 393, in which case Hon ble Supreme Court came to consider the submissions made on the strength of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment has held that after expiry of the lease status of Lessee will be that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t continuing in possession after the determination of the term with the consent of the landlord and a tenant doing so without his consent. The former is a tenant at sufferance in English law and the latter a tenant holding over or a tenant at will. In view of the concluding words of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lessee holding over is in a better position than a tenant at will. The assent of the landlord to the continuance of possession after the determination of the tenancy will create a new tenancy. What the section contemplates is that on one side there should be an offer of taking a new lease evidenced by the lessee or sub-lessee remaining in possession of the property after his term was over and on the other side there must be a definite consent to the continuance of possession by the landlord expressed by acceptance of rent or otherwise. 26. As observed above, there is nothing on record to indicate that NOIDA at any point of time, expressly or impliedly assented to the continuance of Corporate Debtor in possession. The above submission which was raised by the Adjudicating Authority was noticed and repelled by Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 23 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old right in the Tea Gardens, which are assets of the Corporate Debtor which need to be taken control by the Resolution Professional under Section 18(f) and Section 25 of the I B Code? 2. Whether with regard to those Tea Gardens where period of lease has come to an end before commencement of the CIRP and application for renewal has been filed by the Corporate Debtor, the lease shall be deemed to be renewed since no decision has yet been taken by the State of West Bengal either accepting or rejecting the application? 28. This Tribunal after answering the aforesaid question held that on the ground that Application for renewal of lease have been filed by the Corporate Debtor Leases of Tea Green shall not be treated as deemed to be renewed and Leases of aforesaid Tea Garden shall be treated to have expired before commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (`CIRP ). Answering Question No. 2, following was held in Paragraph 66 : 66. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that on the ground that Application for renewal has been filed by the Corporate Debtor, the leases of the aforesaid Tea Garden shall not be treated as deemed to be renewed and leases of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debtor on 13.08.2015 i.e., more than two and half years before the commencement of the CIRP. 27. The next plea raised by the Respondent/RP is that the project was registered with the UP RERA on 15.08.2017 with Registration Number UPRERAPRJ 10636. The Applicant/Noida in this regard has submitted that Registration (was) done by the Promoters without information to the applicant and wrong affidavit was given to U.P. RERA for getting the project registered, which reads as under: I. Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd. have/has legal title to the land on which the development of the proposed project is to be carried out.' Further, the RP has himself mentioned in that the Registration with U.P. RERA was done without the intimation to the applicant i.e., Noida Authority . Thus, what emerges is that the CD/its promoters got the RERA registration of the project done on 15.08.2017 by falsely claiming the legal title over the land whereas the same was cancelled by Noida as back as on 13.08.2015. Even otherwise, the fact of RERA registration of the project ipso facto does not establish that the lease of Plot No. SC-01/D-1, Sector 79 Noida, which was cancelled by Noida Authority vide letter dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion has not arisen or has no relation with the commencement of CIRP Proceedings of the Corporate Debtor. Since (a) neither there is any evidence of payment of lease rent by the CD post-cancellation of the Lease deed of Plot No. No. SC-01/D-1, Sector 79 Noida, to the Noida Authority; (b) nor there is any written permission by the Noida Authority for restoration or continuation of the lease deed of the said plot; and (c) nor the issue about the deemed continuation of the Lease deed had arisen out of the Insolvency Proceedings, hence Section 116 of TOPA 1882 does not help the case of the Respondent/RP. 29. In a nutshell, as the Lease deed of the project land was cancelled by the Applicant/Noida Authority vide letter dated 13.08.2015 and after the indulgence of this Tribunal, the Representation of the CD dated 14.06.2016 was also considered at the level of CEO Noida and rejected vide their letter dated 10.11.2020, the lease deed of the said plot cannot be deemed to have continued. Moreover, despite ample opportunities in the interest of justice granted by this Adjudicating Authority to the Respondent/RP, CoC (mainly comprising of Home Buyers), and SRA, they failed to arrive at any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. At the outset we may take notice of the reliefs prayed for by the Appellant which are as follows: a) Allow the present Appeal; b) Set aside the observations my by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority as against the Appellant in Paras 28 30 in Impugned Order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Hon ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-II in I.A. No. 1592 of 2019; c) Pass any other Order which this Hon ble Tribunal deems fit. 32. This Tribunal noticed the submission of the RP where the RP has defended his action to include the Plot in question in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The submission advanced by the RP was rejected and this Tribunal in its Judgment dated 01.05.2024 in Paragraphs 12 to 15 returned following finding: 12. Coming to our analysis and findings, we are of the view that material on record clearly show that the lease of the subject plot was cancelled by Noida authority on 13.08.2015. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the lease deed of the said plot was restored to the Corporate Debtor except that an application had been filed by the suspended management after a gap of 305 days before the Noida authority seeking restoration. It is also an undispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled the lease of the subject plot. Hence this fact was clearly in the knowledge of the RP right from the time of commencement of CIRP proceedings. Furthermore, the RP in their counter affidavit in CA No 479 of 2019 in the matter of G.S. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Ors. had admitted that it was aware of the cancellation of the lease and this has been reflected in the impugned order as below: 22. It is submitted that the NOIDA Authority cancelled the allotment of the Land vide its notification dated 13.08.2015 for nonpayment of the amount due and in accordance with the provisions of the Lease Deed between NOIDA and the Corporate Debtor, the allotment was cancelled and the deposit amount was forfeited. It is submitted that as the land allotment has been cancelled, the Corporate Debtor lost its title as lessee and the ensuing rights thereof and therefore the Respondent Company and/or the Respondents have no good title over the land on which the constructions/development work has taken place. A copy of the cancellation notification dated 13.08.2015 is annexed as Annexure 7. 15. Despite knowing that the lease had been cancelled by the Noida authority, merely on the pretext that the cancell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... responsible for overseeing all aspects of CIRP. RP's underlying mandate is to ensure efficiency, transparency, and accountability within the insolvency resolution process marked by a nuanced equilibrium among creditor rights, stakeholder concerns, and procedural equity. In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly noted that the role of the RP has leaned towards justifying the wrongful action of the suspended management. We find no error in the findings arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority and affirm the observations made in respect of the unbecoming and unfair conduct of the RP. 18. In the result, given the sequence of events and the facts and circumstances of the case, for the reasons discussed above, we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order in particular with regard to the observations made on the role of the RP. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 34. Learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to distinguish the Judgment on the ground that Appellants being not party in the Appeal which was filed by the RP, the said Judgment does not operate as res judicata. It is relevant to notice that Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he generality of the objects of the Authority, the Authority shall perform the following functions :-- (a) to acquire land in the industrial development area, by agreement or through proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of this Act; (b) to prepare a plan for the development of the industrial development area; (c) to demarcate and develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential purposes according to the plan; (d) to provide infrastructure for industrial, commercial and residential purposes; (e) to provide amenities; (f) to allocate and transfer either by way of sale or lease or otherwise plots of land for industrial, commercial or residential purposes; (g) to regulate the erection of buildings and setting up of industries; and (h) to lay down the purpose for which a particular site or plot of land shall be used, namely for industrial or commercial or residential purpose or any other specified purpose in such area. 39. As per Section 6(1) the object of the authority is to secure the Plan development of the Industrial Development Area. NOIDA has acquired the land for the above purpose and leased out to various entities for planned development. 40. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebuyers. Appellants have also brought the Balance Sheets of the Corporate Debtor as on 31.03.2017. It is submitted that in the Balance Sheets it has been shown that Rs. 170.21 Crores/- have been received from the homebuyers. RTI Application which was filed by one of the homebuyers has already been noticed where several details were asked. In Question No. 4 Question No. 5, following have been asked by the homebuyers : 4. Following details for Progress of Work at Site. A. Has Noida Authority done the Inspection of Site to access the progress of work at site Since January 2015 till date i.e. 05.07.2017, If yes, then please provide the date and details inspection, a certified true copy of site inspection report and findings. B. Has Noida Authority received any complaint form Buyer(s) for slow progress of work at Site, if yes please provide a certified true copy of action taken by Noida Authority for such complaints. 5. Has Noida Authority has given any legal notice to the builder for cancellation of plot since January 2012 till date i.e. 05.07.2017? If yes, Certified copy of such Notice and copy of all actions taken up by Noida authority after issuance of legal notice. 43. Answer given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 provides for the resumption of any site or building and forfeiture of whole or any part of the money if any paid in respect thereof: 14. Forfeiture for breach of conditions of transfer. (1) In the case of non-payment of consideration money or any instalment thereof on account of the transfer by the Authority of any site or building or in case of any breach of any condition of such transfer or breach of any rules or regulations made under this Act, the Chief Executive Officer may resume the site or building so transferred and may further forfeit the whole or any part of the money, if any paid in respect thereof. (2) Where the Chief Executive Officer orders resumption of any site or building under sub-section (1) the Collector may, on his requisition, cause possession thereof to be delivered to him and may for that purpose use or cause to be used, such force as may be necessary. 47. In the above case, Hon ble Supreme Court observed that Authorities have failed to perform the Statutory Duties cast upon them to take prompt action. In Paragraphs 98, 99 100 following has been observed: 98. The Authorities have failed to take action under the aforesaid provisions. The Authorities have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts unjust gain based upon fraud. The principle fraud vitiates is clearly attracted and such a transaction would become unenforceable and would be against the public trust doctrine. Real estate business can never prosper in case of breach of trust, bankers, Authorities in connivance and the builders are permitted to take away the innocent homebuyers' money without being accountable to their action/inaction. From tomorrow huge money will be collected from homebuyers by the builder, banks would act in connivance and the Authorities sleep in slumber, permitting diversion of money of buyers/bankers, etc., and the homebuyers will be paying the dues of all concerned without investment of a penny by builder and rather they are diverting the money of the homebuyers in connivance with the Authorities and bankers and they are left without dream homes. If that is a factual scenario, no court can permit such fraud to be perpetrated. Since fraud vitiates , the bounden duty of the court is to act as parens patriae not only to save the homebuyers but also to ensure that they are not cheated. 100. Authorities and bankers have not acted in furtherance of public interest and failed to perform dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lease of the land, being the substratum of the Corporate Debtor's project has been cancelled vide this letter dated 31.03.2015 for want of deposit of necessary lease rent/charges in terms of the allotment. It is also pointed out that the resolution plan has been approved by the CoC on the basis that the land belongs to the Corporate Debtor. We fail to understand how a resolution plan can be considered by this bench when the lease of the allotted land has already been cancelled by Noida Authority way back in 2015 itself. Notwithstanding fact that a resolution plan cannot be considered for want of having a stratum, Ld. Counsel for the shareholders has submitted that the entire adjudication has to be considered de novo in the light of Pioneer Judgment. We are constrained to observe that despite knowing that the lease had been cancelled by Noida Authority, the Directors/Shareholder continued to accumulate money thereafter by duping several investors who nurtured the fond hope of getting a roof over their head and invested their lifetime's money. The Corporate Debtor knew that no project could be implemented or flats constructed and delivered when there was no land. This is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded from assets of the Corporate Debtor. Now there is no impediment in the NOIDA taking possession of the assets along with the structure, standing thereof and take further steps in accordance with law. For taking steps, it is also necessary for the NOIDA Authority to take steps for early disposal of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26400/2023, in which there is restraint Order that NOIDA till the next listing shall not create third-party interest. 52. Be that as it may, it is open for the NOIDA Authority to bring all subsequent events including the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and Orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority excluding in the Assets from the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor before the High Court and pray for appropriate direction. 53. We have noticed above that the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor was approved by the CoC on 04.12.2019 and I.A. was also filed by the RP under Section 30(6) for approval of the Plan being I.A. No. 1664/2019. In view of the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 11.01.2024, the very substratum of the Resolution Plan being knocked out, the Application I.A. 1664/2019 has become infructuous and cannot be proceeded any further. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
