9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 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. 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne by 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Plan in the CIRP 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cancellation of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Corporate Debtor, 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 implementa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r may determine the lease with penalties 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence, in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble NCLAT passed in Company Appeal (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clauses, as noted above, have to be read to give meaning and purpose of the statutory provisions. The first clause which 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application having been made after more than 10 months, it was not entertained but after the order of the Adjudicating Authority a detailed order was passed rejecting the prayer for restoration of the plot. There is no such act on the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenant at sufference", or a "tenant by sufference", who is in possession not by right but by the laches of the owner or landlord, and whose possession is, therefore, not of right but of wrong, although it may not be that of a trespasser whose possession originates in wrong and 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 hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Counsel for the CoC that Plot was not cancelled and information was not given cannot be accepted. The cancellation letter was sent to the Corporate Debtor who after receiving the letter has applied for restoration on 14.06.2016. The letter of the Corporate Debtor itself dispels all doubts regarding cancellation of the Plots, sought 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/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by one of the homebuyers who was member of the Homebuyers Association. We thus are of the view that doubts raised by the Appellant regarding the cancellation of Plot in question is baseless and cancellation of the Plot by NOIDA is an accomplished fact. 24. Now coming back to the submission of the Appellant regarding right of the Corporate Debtor who claims to 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) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i [Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, (1972) 1 SCC 388] held as under : (SCC p. 391, para 9) "9. The act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. If a tenant remains in possession after the determination of the lease, the common law rule is that he is a tenant on sufferance. A distinction should be drawn between a tenant 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich no decision has been taken and with regard to three tea gardens i.e. Kilcott, Bagracote and Garganda issue of renewal of lease has been raised. Both the parties have advances rival submissions with regard to renewal. From the submission of learned counsel for the parties and materials on record following are issues which arise of consideration : 1. Whether the Corporate Debtor has lease hold 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CD lost the possessory rights more than two and half years before the initiation of the CIRP. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble NCLAT in "Neesa Leisure Limited" (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we hold that the benefit of Section 14(1)(d) cannot be granted to the Respondent/RP herein, for a property/project land, which ceased to be an asset of the Corporate 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 Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r restoration/continuation of the said lease. Even otherwise, as we have already noted, the Lease Deed of the Plot No. SC01/D-1, Sector 79, Noida was cancelled on 13.08.2015 more than two and half years before the initiation of the CIRP. The CD/ Ex Management also applied for restoration of the said plot vide their letter dated 14.06.2016, which too, was much before the commencement of the CIRP. Hence, the question of deemed subsistence of the lease deed of the plot in question 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 202 of 2020), continued to take all actions including preparation of Information Memorandum (IM), projecting the cancelled "project plot" as the asset of the Corporate Debtor, inviting EOIs and getting approval of a Resolution Plan from the COC as if the said plot existed with the Corporate Debtor." 31. The RP in the Appeal has made the prayers which have been quoted by this Tribunal in its Judgment dated 01.05.2024 in Paragraph 7. The Judgment of this Tribunal in Paragraph 7 is as follows: "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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RA that the Corporate Debtor had legal title to the subject lease land. Basis this wrongful obtaining of RERA registration, it cannot be rightfully claimed by the RP that the lease was subsisting or stood revived. We also notice that the Noida authority in their reply to I.A. 3202/2020 had mentioned that that UP RERA authorities were informed on 27.01.2021 during the CIRP period to cancel the RERA registration. 14. The CIRP admission order of the Corporate Debtor also clearly noted that the Noida authority had 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Noida authority, the Adjudicating Authority has come to well-reasoned out conclusion that the subject plot cannot be made part of the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor and the RP has been directed to exclude the same from the resolution plan. In the same breath, the Adjudicating Authority has passed certain observations on the conduct of the RP. There is no quarrel that during the CIRP process, RP is expected to play a pivotal role, so as to effectively assume control of the corporate debtor's management and become 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976. UP Act 6/1976 was enacted to provide for the constitution of the Authority for the development of certain areas in the State into Industrial and Urban Township and for matters connected there with. The functions of NOIDA Authorities are enumerated in Section 6, which are as follows: "6. Function of the Authority.-(1) The object of the Authority shall be to secure the planned development of the industrial development areas. (2) Without prejudice to the 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 on 26.06.2013. The homebuyers claimed that they were not made aware of the cancellation of the Plot either by Promoter or by NOIDA. They claimed to have submitted representation to the NOIDA on 10.05.2016 and 29.08.2017, highlighting the problems faced by homebuyers. It is also claimed that Meeting was held on 13.05.2016 with ACEO NOIDA and Director of the Corporate Debtor. It was stated that although possession was to be given by 01.08.2016, and till date only 20-25% of the construction have been completed. Homebuyers also Pleaded that developers have collected huge amount from the homebuyers. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority in respect of any lease or where any transferee or occupier makes any default in payment of any amount of fee or tax levied under the Act, in addition to the amount of arrears, a further sum not exceeding that amount shall be recovered from the transferee or occupier by way of penalty. Under Section 13-A, any amount payable to the Authority under Section 13 shall constitute a charge over the property and may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or by attachment and sale of property in the manner provided under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 (Act 2 of 1959). 97. Section 14 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first charge on the structure as they have to recover the amount, only thereafter if anything is left out, can be paid to the buyers. In case the submission is accepted, it would amount to playing further fraud upon the fraud. It was incumbent upon the Authorities as well as the banks to prevent the fraud. Now, if banks, as well as the Authorities, are permitted to recover the amount from the homebuyers' investment, in that case, it would be equally unjust and would be against the conscience of the law and nothing would be left for buyers not even a brick and the structures have come up by investing their money. Law never permits 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the `Bikram Chatterjee & Ors.' (Supra) 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. 49. It is relevant to notice that Adjudicating Authority in its Order passed on 20.02.2020 has observed that despite knowing that the lease has been cancelled the Directors/Shareholders continued to accumulate money by several investors. Observation made in the Order dated 20.02.2020 is as follows : "CA. 1592/2019 has been filed by the Noida Authority. Ld. Counsel has apprised this Bench that the 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. Notwithst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Debtor, as is on record clearly refers to amount of Rs. 170.2 Crores/- received from homebuyers as liability. The Counsel for the homebuyers association submits that amount paid is about Rs. 200 Crores/-. The Balance Sheet also notices the inventory of the Corporate Debtor. 51. It having been held that the Plot in question and the Project is not the part of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, the said lease land and the Project has now to be dealt by the NOIDA Authority, keeping in view the Order of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court passed on 09.08.2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26400/2023, as extracted above. The Plot in question having been held to be excluded 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
