TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by Respondent No. 4 in violation of the Consolidated FDI Policy of India. 2. The facts of the case are : Petitioner is the lead developer of consortium to which State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) awarded project for construction, development and operation of a 5-Star Hotel at Hyderabad. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Telangana through the Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture Department that owns the project and floated the tender for the execution. Respondent No. 2 is Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation which is a State Government undertaking and has been nominated by the State Government to represent Respondent No. 1 for legal purposes. Respondent No.3 is the Empowered Committee (Tourism) of the State of Telangana comprising of the Deputy Chief Minister & Minister of Finance, Minister for Tourism & Culture and Minister for IT, Industries & Commerce, which was tasked with taking the decision on the representation of Respondent No. 4 for taking over the project. Respondent No. 4 is to whom the project has now been awarded by the State Government and it was the successful resolution applicant in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, Hyderabad' started commercial operations in September, 2013. The second tower was also almost complete with only interior work left to be done. Vide letter dated 17.09.2013, the State Government sought to unilaterally increase the lease rate from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 7500/- per square yard, however this Court under order dated 26.09.2013 in Writ Petition No. 27922 of 2013 granted interim suspension of the letter dated 17.09.2013 of the State Government. 2.3. It is also stated, as agreed between the consortium members, technical member i.e. M/s. EIH Ltd. was appointed as the operator of the hotel. However, M/s. ElH Ltd. connived with Bank of Baroda, which provided EIH with 'No Objection Certificate' to open and operate a separate bank account for GJHPL i.e. other than the one agreed upon in agreements between GJHPL and lenders. M/s EIH opened this separate bank account in Union Bank of India by providing KYC documents of its own employees and started diverting revenues from hotel operations into this account. Between October 2015 and July 2016, EIH Ltd. diverted around Rs. 88 Crores which financially crippled GJHPL. Resultantly, GJHPL was unable to service its dues to lende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontended that on 01.07.2025, an order was passed where NCLT directed the State Government to report on the status of the approvals being considered by it. On 04.07.2025, this original order dated 01.07.2025 was deleted from the website of NCLT and a new order dated 01.07.2025 was uploaded whereby it is written that Respondent No. 2 requested for six weeks-time for obtaining approvals from the State Government and the time for the same has been granted and Respondent No. 2 was directed to file detailed status report. 2.7. Petitioner stated that on 25.09.2025, Respondent No. 2 filed a memo before the NCLT along with the impugned minutes of meeting of the Empowered Committee where the following decision has been taken: "Empowered committee has decided to issue a No Objection Certificate in favour of successful Resolution Applicant i.e., M/s. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. (NQ) Pte., Ltd., (M/s. Blackstone) with the following terms and conditions: 1) Lease with the M/s. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. (NQ) Pte., Ltd., (M/s Blackstone) will be valid till the balance period of the earlier lease agreement upto the year 2041 only, without any extension. 2) Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Vanaparthi Vaishali, learned counsel for Petitioner vehemently contended that State Government acted arbitrarily and illegally by transferring the project to Respondent No. 4 without issuing notice, hearing or compensation Petitioner, thereby violated Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. He further contended that selection of Respondent No. 4 is made without public tender or procurement, through private negotiations, which is against public policy. Learned counsel alleges discrimination and violation of Article 14, as the technical member (EIH Ltd.) was retained in the project even as the rights of Petitioner being the Lead Member were extinguished, despite both being part of the successful consortium. He also objects that 100% FDI is impermissible for an already developed hotel project as per the Government's FDI Policy and NCLT-approved resolution plan could not override valid contractual and statutory protections without explicit procedure and consent. Petitioner accrued proprietary rights as Lead Developer were extinguished without following the procedure established in the project agreements and that there was neither any breach comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esolution Plan was also dismissed on 11.12.2024. He also submits that Civil Appeal No.312 of 2025 filed against dismissal of Appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.02.2025. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing on behalf of Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 submits that Petitioner has already sought the exact relief before this Court in Writ Petition No. 17129 of 2020; the appeals preferred thereagainst were also dismissed and now, the same relief is being sought in a circuitous manner. The single-largest shareholder, director and authorized signatory of Petitioner who has filed the present Petition - Laxmi Narayan Sharma, challenged Respondent No. 4's Resolution Plan, including Clause 6.1 before the NCLT, NCLAT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and failed everywhere. 5.1. It is further submitted that earlier Writ Petition No. 17129 of 2020 was dismissed on the ground that after initiation of CIRP, only NCLT has jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the said order of this Court. The State of Telangana's approval/ consent, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition is result of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsolvency resolution under the IBC and the approved Resolution Plan expressly required State Government's consent, an exercise of contractual and statutory discretion. Petitioner's challenges to transfer and restructuring of project responsibilities have already failed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 17129 of 2020 and Writ Appeal No. 1135 of 2023 and before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(c).No. 22186 of 2024, conclusively holding that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 override the Telangana Infrastructure Development Enabling Act, 2001 to the extent of inconsistency. 7. Further, once the NCLT-approved plan is in operation, its terms, including permissible changes in shareholding, are binding unless set aside in accordance with the Code. The State's consent to Respondent No. 4 is in line with the Plan and the rights of petitioner, if any, arise out of contract and are subject to the terms, including consequences of insolvency and changes arising from judicial orders. The argument that no notice was given or compensation was paid ignores the supervening effect of the IBC and the scheme approved thereunder. Proceedings regarding all....