Statutory planning orders fall outside insolvency jurisdiction where the development authority acts independently of the resolution plan.

A statutory sanction of a building map issued by the Lucknow Development Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 could not be treated as an insolvency dispute merely because it related to a corporate resolution plan. The resolution plan only enabled the successful resolution applicant to seek necessary approvals, while the sanction order was passed independently by the statutory authority after plan approval. As the challenge concerned an exercise of independent statutory power, the NCLT had no jurisdiction to set aside the sanction order, and the application was not maintainable before the Adjudicating Authority. The proper remedy lay under the planning law, including the revisional remedy before the State Government.

---

---

Issues: Whether the National Company Law Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the Lucknow Development Authority's sanction of the map, and whether the application was maintainable in view of the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The relief sought was directed against an order passed by the Lucknow Development Authority in exercise of its statutory powers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The resolution plan had only permitted the successful resolution applicant to obtain the necessary approvals, and the sanction order was passed independently by the statutory authority long after approval of the plan. A decision taken by a statutory authority in exercise of its own jurisdiction cannot be converted into a dispute before the NCLT merely because it has some connection with the corporate insolvency process. The proper remedy lay under the statutory framework governing the development authority's order, including the revisional remedy available to the State Government.

Conclusion: The application before the Adjudicating Authority was not maintainable, and the NCLT had no jurisdiction to set aside the development authority's sanction order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned order involved a statutory planning decision outside the NCLT's insolvency jurisdiction, leaving the appellant to pursue the remedy provided under the relevant planning law.

---