Petition Dismissed, Lease Validity Upheld, Parties to Maintain Status Quo

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the termination of the lease deed and license agreement. It affirmed the NCLT's jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner's concerns. The court instructed the parties to maintain the status quo until 03.03.2023.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lease agreement should be read in isolation and whether its termination violates the principles of natural justice.
2. Whether the issues raised in the petition can be considered by the NCLT in the application filed by GIDC.

Issue-Wise
Detailed Analysis:

1. Lease Agreement and Principles of Natural Justice:
- Contention by Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the lease agreement, executed for 99 years, superseded the license agreement, and therefore, the lease could not be terminated based on the conditions of the license agreement. The petitioner also claimed that the termination notices were issued without following the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided, and notices were not properly served.
- Court's Analysis: The court noted that the allotment letter, license agreement, and lease agreement must be read coterminously, in continuation and conjunction. The lease agreement did not extinguish the conditions of the license agreement. The court found no fault in the termination of the lease deed and license agreement, as the petitioner failed to carry out the required development on the allotted land. The court also held that the notices were served in compliance with the GPP Act, and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to the non-development of the land.

2. Jurisdiction of NCLT and IBC Provisions:
- Contention by Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the action of GIDC violated the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), specifically Section 33(5), which bars initiation of proceedings against the corporate debtor once a liquidation order is passed. The petitioner contended that the NCLT does not have jurisdiction over the matter as it falls outside the purview of IBC.
- Contention by Respondent: The respondent argued that the NCLT has the jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any application by or against the corporate debtor, as per Section 60(5) of the IBC. The respondent also stated that the land does not form part of the liquidation estate and that the NCLT can adjudicate on questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to insolvency resolution proceedings.
- Court's Analysis: The court referred to relevant case laws, including *Embassy Property Development Private Limited v. State of Karnataka*, *Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta*, and *Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Vishal Ghisulal Jani*. It concluded that the NCLT has a wide discretion under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to insolvency resolution proceedings. The court held that the petitioner could raise all contentions before the NCLT, which had already been invoked by the respondent.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the termination of the lease deed and license agreement was valid and that the NCLT has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the petitioner. The court also ordered the parties to maintain the status quo until 03.03.2023.

---