TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Adv., Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR, Mr. Anshuman Sharma, Adv., For the Earth Property Buyers Association (Diary No. 19132/2023): Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv., Mr. Vishesh Kumar, Adv., Ms. Prity Kumari, Adv., Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR. For the Unific Techone Patrons Independent Association (UTOPIA) (CA 4619/2023): Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR, Mr. Shashank Raghav, Adv., Ms. Shubhangini Yadav, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv., Mr. Ankur Saraswat, Adv., Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bhati, Adv., Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha, Adv., For the Earth United Consumer Association (CA 3435-3437/2023): Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR, Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv., Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv., Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv., Mr. Ritik Sharma, Adv., For the Earth Copia Owners Society (CA 3438/2023): Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., Mr. V.M. Kannan, AOR, Mr. Mayank Singh, Adv., For the Earth Infra Ltd. (CA 2406-2407/2023): Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ekansh Mishra, AOR. For the Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association (CA 2466/2023): Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Adv., Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv., Ms. Vastala Kak, Adv., Mr. Nishant Rao, Adv., Mr. Naman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Singh, Adv., Mr. Gunjan Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR, Mr. Devendra Kumar Shukla, AOR. JUDGMENT PER SANJAY KUMAR, J 1. By judgment dated 30.01.2023, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ['the NCLAT'], disposed of three company appeals filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), viz., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 180, 629 and 630 of 2022, and set aside the orders dated 05.04.2021, 08.06.2021 and 07.12.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench III, New Delhi ['the NCLT']. 2. By the order dated 05.04.2021 passed in C.A. No. 751 of 2019 in CP(IB)-401(ND)/2017, the NCLT had approved the resolution plan submitted by Roma Unicon Designex Consortium (Roma). This order was challenged by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. By its order dated 08.06.2021 in IA No. 05 of 2020 in CP(IB)-401(ND)/2017, the NCLT had approved the resolution plan submitted by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited (Alpha). This order was assailed by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. By the order dated 07.12.2021 in IA No. 4235 of 2021 filed by Roma in CP(IB)-401(ND)/2017, the NCLT directed GNIDA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. 6. The ostensible genesis of this litigation is the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) initiated by one Deepak Khanna, a financial creditor, against Earth Infrastructures Limited (EIL), the CD, vide Company Petition IB-401(ND)/2017, under Section 7 of the Code. However, long prior thereto, GNIDA, an authority constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, allotted 73,942 square metres of land in Large Group Housing/Builders' Residential Plot No. GH-04, Sector 01, Greater Nodia, Uttar Pradesh, to a consortium, comprising EIL, Raus Infras Limited and Shalini Holdings Limited, under allotment letter dated 19.03.2010. The letter indicated that the Builders Scheme [Scheme Code BRS-01/2010-(I)] would form part of the allotment letter and would be binding on the allotees. GNIDA had formulated this scheme for plots of over 60,000 square metres area, inviting tenders for allotment of such plots on lease for 90 years. The terms and conditions for allotment/lease of such plots were detailed in the scheme. In the event the bidder was a consortium, Clause 8 thereof had application. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers/SPC's may, separately, or together in any combination, sub-divide this allotted plot. However, the area of each of such sub divided plots proposed for execution of lease deed, as described above, should not be less than 20,000 sq. mtrs and the said sub division should be in accordance with the planning norms of the GNIDA. The lead member of the consortium shall have to retain at least 26% of the shareholding as per MOA, till the completion certificate of at least one phase of the project is obtained from Greater NOIDA Authority.' 7. Thus, Clause 8(e) of the scheme required a consortium to form a 'Special Purpose Company' (SPC) to undertake development on the allotted plot. Accordingly, the consortium of EIL, Raus Infras Limited and Shalini Holdings Limited incorporated Earth Towne Infrastructures Private Limited (ETIPL) on 21.07.2010 as the SPC. Lease deed dated 01.09.2010 was thereupon executed by GNIDA leasing out the subject plot to ETIPL for 90 years, commencing from 01.09.2010. The lease deed recorded that GNIDA had approved the name and status of ETIPL on the request of the consortium to develop and erect the project on the plot. It was also noted that the lessee, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owledge Park-V, in Greater Nodia Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, to Nishtha Software Private Limited, another subsidiary of EIL, for development of facilities relating to IT and IT enabled services. Pursuant thereto, GNIDA executed lease deed dated 01.09.2009 in its favour for 90 years for an increased area of 20,911.24 square metres. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 20.02.2010 was executed between Nishtha Software Private Limited and EIL, whereby development on the plot was to be undertaken by EIL. 10. In effect, EIL was to undertake the development on all three plots of land leased out by GNIDA. The residential project on the land leased out to ETIPL was named 'Earth Towne' while the project to be developed on the land leased to Neo Multimedia Limited was named 'Earth TechOne' and the project on the land leased to Nishtha Software Private Limited was called 'Earth Sapphire Court'. Building permissions were obtained by the respective lessees of these plots from GNIDA and a large number of home/office space buyers booked homes/office spaces in these projects, paying substantial monies to the developer, EIL, and in some cases, to the lessees. The p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t solvent projects and genuine homebuyers from collateral prejudice. 13. Pursuant to the revised Form G, three resolution applicants came forward, viz., BPT Infra Projects Private Limited, Roma and Alpha. BPT Infra Projects Limited's plan was rejected by the CoC. Roma's resolution plan for 'Earth Towne' was approved by the CoC in its 14th meeting held on 26.08.2019. After the CoC's approval, GNIDA addressed letter dated 18.09.2019 to the RP, stating that the dues payable to it by ETIPL were Rs.148,37,46,148/-. The NCLT approved the acceptance of Roma's resolution plan, vide order dated 05.04.2021 passed in C.A. No. 751 of 2019 in CP (IB)-401(ND)/2017. 14. At this stage, we may note that, apart from the projects that were to be developed by EIL on the plots leased out by GNIDA, a separate project named 'Earth Copia' was also being undertaken by it on freehold land in Sector 112, Gurugram, Dwarka Expressway, Haryana. This land had nothing to do with GNIDA and, in consequence, no dues were payable to it in relation thereto. Alpha's resolution plan covered four projects of EIL, including Earth Copia. Alpha's resolution plan was approved by the CoC at its 19th meeting held on 11.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill issuance of the occupancy/completion certificate in relation to at least one phase of the project. We may also note that EIL, the lead member with 78% shareholding in ETIPL, thereafter increased it to 98%. As per the lease deed, it was the lessee, ETIPL, that was to undertake payment of the interest/premium as per the schedule therein. The paid-up capital of ETIPL was, however, only Rs.1 lakh and it was EIL that paid Rs.51.88 crores to GNIDA against the interest/premium payable under the lease deed. Admittedly, there was default thereafter in such payments. GNIDA issued notices to ETIPL in that regard on 04.04.2019, 16.07.2019, 29.01.2020 and 01.05.2020. By the year 2016, EIL had constructed only twelve towers and completed foundation work of five towers in Earth Towne. 17. GNIDA's complaint before the NCLAT was that the RP did not keep it informed of the proceedings in the CIRP and it was only after approval of Roma's resolution plan, vide order dated 05.04.2021, that GNIDA was informed of the same by the RP, vide letter dated 26.07.2021. As per GNIDA, as on 31.03.2022, ETIPL was to pay it Rs.215,87,18,190/-. GNIDA also claimed that, as on 24.03.2022, Neo Multimedia Private....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them that it would recalculate the principal and interest and check if it could waive the penal interest from 2016 onwards, so as to bring in a new developer for a settlement. 20. The NCLAT also permitted Earth TechOne Patrons Independent Association and Sapphire Patrons Independent Common Association, which claimed to be registered associations of office space buyers in those projects, to participate in the proceedings. Their complaint was that Earth Sapphire Court had been launched in the year 2010 while Earth TechOne was commenced in the year 2012, whereupon EIL had collected monies from the prospective buyers in both projects. According to them, EIL had promised 12% assured returns which were paid till September, 2015, but no payments were made thereafter. They claimed that a meeting had been held on 20.05.2016, wherein the Chief Executive Officer of GNIDA had warned EIL that action would be taken against it in the light of the grievances put forth by the members of the associations. They further claimed that they had given a representation on 27.07.2016 to GNIDA praying that strict action be taken against EIL, followed by meetings on 08.05.2017 and 16.05.2017. They claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase land before commencement of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor? (VII) What is the way out in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 22. Issues I, II and III were taken up together. The NCLAT noted that, in terms of the 'Explanation' to Section 18, the assets of a subsidiary of the corporate debtor could not be included within the term 'assets'. This observation was made in the context of the leasehold rights having been conferred by GNIDA, not upon EIL, the CD, but upon ETI, which was practically its subsidiary. The same logic was applied to the leasehold rights held by the other subsidiary companies of EIL, viz., Neo Multimedia Limited and Nishtha Software Private Limited. 23. The NCLAT also noted that the Information Memorandum brought out by the RP did not include the project lands as the assets of EIL. The NCLAT, therefore, opined that there was no occasion for the resolution applicants to include such project lands in their resolution plans. According to the NCLAT, the resolution plans sought to transfer not only the development rights over the project lands but also the title over the lands in favour of third parties, without obtaining prior approva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s assets. Issue No. II was also answered in the negative, holding that the resolution plans of Roma and Alpha could not have dealt with the project lands which were leased out to EIL's subsidiary companies by GNIDA. Issue No. III was answered on the same lines, holding that the assets of the subsidiary companies could not have been dealt with in the CIRP of the holding company, EIL, without the permission of the lessor, GNIDA. 26. On Issue No. IV, the NCLAT held that GNIDA ought to have been made a party to the CIRP proceedings before approval of any resolution plan involving GNIDA's project lands. On Issue No. V, the NCLAT found fault with the RP for not keeping GNIDA informed of the progress of the CIRP despite GNIDA's letter dated 18.09.2019. The NCLAT concluded that the RP failed to act within the ambit of the Code while certifying that the resolution plans submitted by Roma and Alpha were in accordance with the provisions thereof. The NCLAT, accordingly, directed its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the IBBI to examine the work and conduct of the RP and take action as it deemed fit and proper. On Issue No. VI, the NCLAT held that knowledge of GNIDA about the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not been diligent in taking steps for recovery of its dues and was, therefore, not entitled to charge penal interest. The NCLAT, accordingly, directed GNIDA to waive the penal interest and recalculate its dues. 28. The NCLAT opined that the way out for the RP was to make an application along with the associations of buyers of the respective projects to GNIDA, seeking permission for transfer of the lands to prospective resolution applicants who were then to execute the projects after payment of GNIDA's dues. The NCLAT left it open to GNIDA to enter into arrangements with such resolution applicants and buyers' associations for payment of the dues, whereupon it could transfer the lands so that the projects could be developed by the resolution applicants. The RP was directed to publish a fresh Form G, inviting resolution plans with the specific condition that the resolution plans would be presented to the CoC for consideration only after GNIDA's dues were paid and its permission was obtained for transfer of the leasehold lands. Roma and Alpha were also permitted to file their resolution plans. GNIDA was directed to recalculate its dues and communicate the same to the RP and the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rievance apropos this project and ought to have clarified this aspect in its appeal before the NCLAT filed against the NCLT's order dated 08.06.2021. 30. An intervenor, Earth Buyers Association for Justice, seeks to come on record before us so as to challenge Alpha's resolution plan in so far as it relates to Earth Copia also. Alpha's resolution plan had been approved by 91.39% voting share of the CoC and the intervenor, was not a member of the CoC. Twenty-nine homebuyers who had not voted for the plan are members of the intervenor. In this regard, Section 25A(3A) of the Code assumes importance. It provides that an authorised representative under Section 21(6A) of the Code would cast his vote on behalf of the class of financial creditors he represents, such as homebuyers, in accordance with the decision taken by a vote of more than 50% of the voting share of the financial creditors he represents, who have cast their vote. The homebuyers of Earth Copia were, accordingly, represented by their authorised representative, who voted in favour of Alpha's resolution plan dated 15.10.2019, as per the desire of majority of those homebuyers as a class. It is, therefore, not open to individ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its attempts before the NCLT and the NCLAT in raising objections against Alpha's resolution plan. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Earth Buyers Association for Justice has no locus to seek intervention in these appeals and again raise objections to the approval of the resolution plans of Alpha and Roma. 33. We may also note that, upon a complaint, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) issued show-cause notice dated 27.10.2023 to Akash Singhal, the RP of EIL. Thereupon, the IBBI passed order dated 06.02.2025 suspending Akash Singhal's registration for three years, effective from 06.03.2025. WP(C) No. 2906 of 2025 was filed by Akash Singhal against the aforestated order dated 06.02.2025 and the same is pending before the Delhi High Court. However, while suspending the RP's registration, the IBBI left it to the CoCs/Stakeholders Consultation Committees of all the corporate debtors in whose cases Akash Singhal was providing services to decide about his continuation with those existing assignments. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the IBBI, the CoC of EIL decided to continue Akash Singhal as the RP, in terms of Section 23 of the Code, i.e., in relation to manag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the approved lay out plan, and get a completion/occupancy certificate of the first phase within three years from the date of execution of the lease deed. Extension of time for completion of the project was contemplated up to a maximum period of another three years only, coupled with penalty. 36. As already stated supra, after initiation of the CIRP proceedings against EIL on 06.06.2018, the NCLT caused public announcement of the same on 12.06.2018. The CoC was constituted and its first meeting was held on 05.12.2018. A public announcement was made by the IRP on 13.12.2018, inviting claims against EIL, the CD. On 19.12.2018, the IRP informed GNIDA about the initiation of CIRP proceedings against EIL. The RP was appointed on 18.03.2019 by the CoC. On 28.05.2019, the RP wrote to GNIDA, calling for its dues in relation to all three projects. GNIDA did not respond to these letters or submit claims at that time. On 21.06.2019, the RP published the Information Memorandum for the three projects on GNIDA's leased lands and the project on the freehold land in Gurgaon. As GNIDA had not intimated its dues in time, the Information Memorandum mentioned only the estimated dues payable to GN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the context of the rules and regulations framed by it or in terms of the policy decisions taken by it apropos situations where the builder committed default or was liquidated. 41. Pursuant to the order dated 17.07.2023, GNIDA filed affidavit dated 24.12.2024. Therein, its Manager stated that, owing to the limited infrastructure available with it, GNIDA would not be able to take up the projects and complete the construction. Details were furnished of the payments made by the lessees from time to time. We find that, insofar as Neo Multimedia Limited is concerned, no payments were made after 06.01.2011 but the payments made earlier to that date were in excess of what was required to be paid. As regards Nishtha Software Private Limited, payments stopped on 20.09.2010. Again, the payments made prior to that date were in excess of the required payments. Lastly, ETIPL stopped payments after 28.02.2013. However, payments made by it earlier to that date were also in excess of the required payments. GNIDA stated that no details were available with it as to development of the land by Neo Multimedia Limited but insofar as Nishtha Software Private Limited was concerned, a site inspection was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal dues of Rs.17,57,25,184/- payable by Nishtha Software Private Limited, Rs.43,12,694/- was the penal interest on the additional compensation; Rs.87,29,431/- was the penal interest on the lease rent; and Rs.8,31,69,781/- was the time-extension penalty. Thus, Rs.9,62,11,906/- out of the total Rs.17,57,25,184/- was attributable to penal interest/penal charges. We may also note that there was no default in payment of premium by Nishtha Software Private Limited. As regards ETIPL, out of the total dues of Rs.309,79,44,039/-, the penal interest on the premium dues was Rs.31,88,34,014/- while Rs.5,48,38,863/- was the penal interest on the additional compensation and Rs.4,26,96,421/- was the penal interest on the lease rent along with time-extension penalty of Rs.18,02,05,897/-, totalling to Rs.59,65,75,195/-. Therefore, devoid of penal interest/penal charges, the dues of ETIPL were just over Rs.250 crore. 44. GNDIA is in appeal against the judgment dated 30.01.2023, insofar as the NCLAT denied it entitlement to claim penal interest. According to it, the finding of NCLAT that there was delay and inaction on its part is incorrect, as sufficient notices were sent by it to the lessees ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2021. As noted by the NCLAT itself, there was no error made in the Information Memorandum which specifically recorded that the landholding entities for Earth Sapphire Court, Earth TechOne and Earth Towne were Nishtha Software Private Limited, Neo Multimedia Limited and ETIPL, the subsidiaries of EIL, to whom lands were leased out by GNIDA. Further, the resolution plans of both Alpha and Roma unequivocally recorded that only the development rights in relation to those projects formed part thereof and not the title to the underlying lands. It may be noted that the CoC approved Roma's resolution plan on 26.08.2019 and the RP filed an application before the NCLT seeking its approval on 03.09.2019. However, it was only on 18.09.2019 that GNIDA raised a claim for Rs.148 crore. Surprisingly, in the said letter, GNIDA projected itself as a financial creditor of EIL; requested processing of its claims during the CIRP; and sought that the leasehold rights should not be transferred without securing its dues. As this claim was, in any event, belated it could not have been considered in view of the decision of this Court in RPS Infrastructure Limited vs. Mukul Kumar and another (2023) 10 SCC 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IDA on 15.10.2013. However, having issued the aforestated notice within a short period of time after the default, GNIDA took no steps till 25.05.2015, when the second notice was issued. Again, GNIDA slept over the matter for a year and issued the next notice on 08.07.2016 followed by two notices in September, 2016. Then, with a hiatus of nearly two years, GNIDA issued the last notice on 13.07.2018. 49. We are, therefore, of the opinion that GNIDA contributed greatly to the present imbroglio by its persistent inaction and ineptitude all through. Having executed lease deeds for development of the lands, it failed to keep track of and monitor the development being undertaken on such lands to ensure timely completion thereof within the stipulated period of seven years. We may also note that long prior to initiation of the CIRP proceedings against EIL, the CD, GNIDA was informed by the aggrieved home/office space buyers of the tardy progress in the construction of the projects but failed to take necessary coercive steps against the lessees and/or the developer, EIL. In this regard, we may also note that GNIDA cannot claim ignorance of the fact that it was EIL that was executing the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plan in relation to Earth Copia, EIL's project on freehold land in Gurugram. 51. Having allowed so much water to flow under the bridge not only to its own detriment but also to the detriment of the innocent home/office space buyers who had invested their hard-earned monies for securing their own homes/office spaces, it is not open to GNIDA to portray itself as an uninformed and injured victim at this late stage. We may also note that, even before this Court, GNIDA chose to approbate and reprobate continuously. This incoherency and lack of consistency on its part is again illustrative of its continued failure to take timely measures, despite being fully aware of the situation. On one hand, GNIDA contends that it has no role to play as EIL, the CD, had no interest in the lands leased out by it to the three companies but, on the other, GNIDA did raise a claim in relation to two out of the three projects on those leased lands. In fact, it raised a claim before the RP in September, 2019, claiming to be a financial creditor and that its dues of Rs.149 crore had to be admitted. 52. Before this Court, GNIDA attempted to bring in a third party, viz., Engineering Projects (India) Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lifting of the corporate veil: '.....Generally and broadly speaking, we may say that the corporate veil may be lifted where a statute itself contemplates lifting the veil, or fraud or improper conduct is intended to be prevented, or a taxing statute or a beneficent statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in reality, part of one concern. It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of cases where lifting the veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the relevant statutory or other provisions, the object sought to be achieved, the impugned conduct, the involvement of the element of public interest, the effect on parties who may be affected, etc.' 54. As is clear from the aforestated observations when, in reality, associated or group companies are inextricably connected so as to form part of one concern, the corporate veil should be lifted. Applying this principle in ArcelorMittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and others (2019) 2 SCC 1, this Court affirmed that where protection of public interest is of paramount importance or where a company has been formed to evade ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Each case that comes before a Court, in the context of lifting of the corporate veil, would have to turn upon its own individual facts. Given the facts obtaining presently, we are of the firm view that this was an eminently fit case for lifting the corporate veil, as EIL was the main driving force in the development of the projects and in payment of GNIDA's dues. The subsidiary companies were only a front. In the light of this finding, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the issue raised in the context of Sections 18 and 25 of the Code, apropos the scope of the term 'assets'. 57. Alpha's resolution plan, which was approved by the CoC on 11.11.2019 and by the NCLT on 08.06.2021, provided under Clause 4 thereof, that it would seek a waiver from GNIDA of its dues but added that if such waiver was not granted, the dues would be proportionately distributed amongst all the allottees. Clause 12.1 of the resolution plan contemplated issuance of a 'No Dues Certificate' by GNIDA prior to conveyances in relation to Earth Sapphire Court as well as Earth TechOne. Alpha, however, stated before this Court that it was willing to pay GNIDA its dues without penal interest/penal charges, given su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2022,. Roma seeks restoration of the order dated 05.04.2021 approving its resolution plan. 62. UTOPIA is the association of allottees of the Earth TechOne, while Sapphire Patrons Independent Common Association (SPICA) is the association of allottees of Earth Sapphire Court. Both these associations participated in the proceedings before the NCLAT and supported the NCLT orders approving the resolution plans. On the same lines, they now support the said plans and seek setting aside of the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the NCLAT, insofar as it pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. 63. Civil Appeal Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 were filed by the Earth United Consumer Association, assailing the judgment dated 30.01.2023 in relation to all three appeals and supporting the orders approving the resolution plans of Roma and Alpha. The association claimed to be a consumer association, representing the buyers/allottees of EIL's projects. Significantly, this association was not a party to the earlier proceedings. In any event, as it is only playing a supporting role, reiterating the grounds taken by the parties to the litigation, we need not entertain the same. 64. Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., penalty of 20% was to be levied on the remaining dues and efforts were to be made by the Authority concerned to get the project completed. If the dues were already paid in full to the Authority, then no fine was to be imposed. This policy/package was communicated by the Infrastructure and Industrial Development Commissioner, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to the Chief Executive Officers of the Authorities, including GNIDA and YEIDA. 66. Though, the aforestated policy/package would have application only to Earth Towne, being a residential project, and may not apply stricto sensu to the other two projects, which are commercial in nature, we may note the higher objective underlying this policy, i.e., to secure completion of stalled development projects. As that was the very aim of the CIRP proceedings initiated against EIL, the CD, we are of the opinion that by adopting the policy to some extent to suit the present situation, the successful resolution applicants, Alpha and Roma, can be permitted to proceed with their resolution plans to complete the projects, viz., Earth Towne, Earth Sapphire Court and Earth TechOne, while protecting the interests of GNIDA also. 67. As rightly p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms. Civil Appeal Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 and Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 are dismissed and lastly, Civil Appeal Nos. 2756 and 2763 of 2023 filed by GNIDA are also dismissed. 70. IA No. 174061 of 2023 was filed by Surinder Kumar Juneja, the erstwhile IRP who was appointed on 06.06.2018, at the time of admission of the CIRP against EIL. He sought intervention in this appeal only because of the status quo order dated 13.04.2023 passed by this Court. Owing to the said order, his application in IA No. 1194 of 2021 pending before the NCLT, filed under Section 60(5) of the Code, for payment of his professional fees, has also been put on hold. As the appeals are being disposed of, the status quo order shall cease to operate. His application can, therefore, be considered by the NCLT, independently and on its own merits, in accordance with law. 71. IA No. 1878 of 2024 was filed by Airwil Intellicity Social Welfare Society, seeking to come on record on the ground that the issue raised in the present appeals is similar to that in the CIRP proceedings that it is interested in. The application is misconceived and is, accordingly, rejected. Similarly, IA No. 137704 of 2023 was fi....