2024 (4) TMI 825 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal Recognizes NOIDA Authority as Secured Operational Creditor, Orders Adjudicating Authority to Proceed with Resolution Plan.

The Tribunal overturned the Adjudicating Authority's decision, recognizing the NOIDA Authority as a Secured Operational Creditor. It directed the ... Rejection of application by the impugned order - Secured creditors or not - It is submitted that the NOIDA Authority was treated as an Operational Creditor and an amount of Rs.10 Crore was earmarked in the plan - HELD THAT:- NOIDA Authority was the lease holder and the records of lease were already with the Resolution Professional being record of the Corporate Debtor, therefore, the claim has to be reflected by the Resolution Professional in the Information Memorandum. In view of the judgment of this Tribunal in MR. ANIL MATTA VERSUS GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ATUL MITTAL (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF ZEAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.) VERSUS NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2024 (4) TMI 439 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI] as well as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VERSUS PRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR. [2024 (2) TMI 681 - SUPREME COURT], the Appellant is clearly a Secured Operational Creditor - the order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the application of NOIDA Authority is unsustainable. The order dated 22.12.2023 is set aside. It is held that the Appellant as Secured Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority may proceed accordingly in accordance with law. Appeal allowed. Issues involved: The appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 22.12.2023 in I.A. No.827 of 2023, filed by the Appellant seeking declaration as a Secured Creditor and raising objections to the Resolution Plan.Summary:Issue 1: Secured Creditor StatusThe Appellant, NOIDA Authority, filed an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting their application to be recognized as a Secured Creditor. The Tribunal considered the facts and legal provisions, noting that the dues of the NOIDA Authority had not been paid by the Corporate Debtor. Despite NOIDA Authority not filing a claim, the Tribunal held that they were entitled to object to the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Professional must consider the debt even if not formally claimed, as per the records of the Corporate Debtor.Issue 2: Treatment as Operational CreditorThe Resolution Professional argued that the NOIDA Authority was treated as an Operational Creditor in the plan, with an amount earmarked. However, the Tribunal observed that NOIDA Authority, as the lease holder, should have had their claim reflected in the Information Memorandum. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that NOIDA Authority should be recognized as a Secured Operational Creditor, setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order and directing further proceedings in accordance with the law.Key Points:- The Tribunal referred to relevant legal precedents, including judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and previous Tribunal decisions.- Emphasized the importance of recognizing the NOIDA Authority as a Secured Operational Creditor based on the lease agreement and unpaid dues.- Directed the Adjudicating Authority to proceed expeditiously with the approval of the Resolution Plan, allowing parties to raise additional issues before the Authority.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the NOIDA Authority should be recognized as a Secured Operational Creditor, overturning the Adjudicating Authority's decision and instructing further proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the law.