2024 (6) TMI 349 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

YEIDA declared secured creditor for Rs.1,689 crores farmers compensation, SRA must pay additional Rs.118.31 crores

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Versus Monitoring Committee of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Through Anuj Jain, Secretary & Ors.

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Versus Monitoring Committee of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Through Anuj Jain, Secretary & Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether YEIDA is a Secured Creditor of the Corporate Debtor.2. Whether the treatment of YEIDA's claim in the Resolution Plan and Adjudicating Authority's order is sustainable if YEIDA is held to be a Secured Creditor.3. Whether YEIDA's claim of Rs.1689 crores needed consideration in CIRP.4. Whether the entire claim of Rs.1689 crores submitted by YEIDA towards additional farmers' compensation needs consideration or if deductions are necessary.5. Whether the 'without prejudice' offer dated 18.04.2024 by SRA proposing 100% payment of additional compensation to YEIDA is actually 100%.6. What is the amount of claim towards EDC.7. Whether the claim towards EDC is a secured claim under the 1976 Act.8. Whether YEIDA's consent is required for proposing a payment in the Resolution Plan.9. Whether YEIDA's consent is necessary for the transfer of leasehold rights to SRA and Assenting Financial Creditors.10. What relief the Appellant is entitled to in this Appeal.Summary:Issue 1: Whether YEIDA is a Secured Creditor of the Corporate DebtorYEIDA is a secured creditor of the corporate debtor with respect to the claim of Rs.1689 crores towards additional farmers' compensation claim. This is supported by Section 13 and 13-A of the 1976 Act, which states that any amount payable to the Authority constitutes a charge over the property.Issue 2: Whether the treatment of YEIDA's claim in the Resolution Plan and Adjudicating Authority's order is sustainable if YEIDA is held to be a Secured CreditorAdjudicating Authority failed to consider YEIDA as a secured creditor and treated it only as an operational creditor. The treatment of YEIDA in the Resolution Plan and the order of the Adjudicating Authority is unsustainable. YEIDA, being a secured creditor, is entitled to different treatment in the Resolution Plan similar to other secured creditors.Issue 3: Whether YEIDA's claim of Rs.1689 crores needed consideration in CIRPThe claim submitted by YEIDA in CIRP of the corporate debtor of Rs.1689 crores needed consideration, and IRP erred in disregarding the claim on the ground of pending litigation.Issue 4: Whether the entire claim of Rs.1689 crores submitted by YEIDA towards additional farmers' compensation needs consideration or if deductions are necessaryThe entire claim of Rs.1689 crores submitted by YEIDA towards additional farmers' compensation needs consideration. The amount of Rs.330 crores pertaining to land parcels already sub-leased by the corporate debtor to third parties and Rs.143 crores pertaining to land arranged from NOIDA need no deduction.Issue 5: Whether the 'without prejudice' offer dated 18.04.2024 by SRA proposing 100% payment of additional compensation to YEIDA is actually 100%The 'without prejudice' offer dated 18.04.2024 offering to make an amount of Rs.1216 crores cannot be held to be 100% payment of additional compensation claim of YEIDA.Issue 6: What is the amount of claim towards EDCTotal amount of EDC claimed as reviewed and reconciled by the appellant is Rs.529.91 crores, subject to payment by EDCs towards land parcels at Tappal and Agra, as and when external development work is carried out at Tappal and Agra.Issue 7: Whether the claim towards EDC is a secured claim under the 1976 ActClaim towards EDC of the Appellant is not a secured claim under the provisions of the 1976 Act and does not need to be dealt in the Resolution Plan as a secured claim.Issue 8: Whether YEIDA's consent is required for proposing a payment in the Resolution PlanFor treatment of the claim of YEIDA in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and for payment to YEIDA in the Resolution Plan, consent of YEIDA is not required.Issue 9: Whether YEIDA's consent is necessary for the transfer of leasehold rights to SRA and Assenting Financial CreditorsFor transfer of leasehold rights of Corporate Debtor to SRA or Assenting Financial Creditors in the Resolution Plan, consent of YEIDA is not necessary.Issue 10: What relief the Appellant is entitled to in this AppealThe impugned order passed by Adjudicating Authority insofar as it deals with the claim of the Appellant of Rs.1689 crores of additional farmers' compensation is set aside. The rest of the impugned order approving the Resolution Plan is upheld. The Successful Resolution Applicant is directed to make payment to the Appellant of its secured operational debt of Rs.1689 crores in the ratio of 79%, which amounts to Rs.1334.31 crores. The SRA in its offer dated 18.04.2024 has already undertaken to make payment of Rs.1216 crores towards additional farmers' compensation in the timeline as indicated in the offer. The additional amount of Rs.118.31 crores, required to be paid to make its payment equivalent to the payment given to other secured creditors, should also be paid as per the timeline indicated in the offer. The Resolution Plan approved as above shall be implemented by SRA in accordance with law.