Full Judgment Text
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 449
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2023
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited … Appellant
versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA)
and others
… Respondents
with
C.A. No. 1743 of 2023
C.A. No. 2491 of 2023
C.A. No. 2466 of 2023
C.A. Nos. 2406-2407 of 2023
C.A. No. 3438 of 2023
C.A. Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023
C.A. No. 2756 of 2023
C.A. No. 2763 of 2023
C.A. No. 4619 of 2023
and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.05.05
14:52:23 IST
Reason:
C.A.(Diary) No. 19132 of 2023
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. By judgment dated 30.01.2023, the National Company Law
1
Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi , 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
2
passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench III, New Delhi .
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 to give effect to the resolution plan approved by
it by the order dated 05.04.2021. This order was challenged before the
NCLAT by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 180 of 2022.
1
For short, ‘the NCLAT’
2
For short, ‘the NCLT’
2
3. Aggrieved by the NCLAT’s judgment dated 30.01.2023, the present
appeals were filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
3
Code, 2016 . We may now note the details of these appeals. Civil Appeal
Nos. 1526 and 1743 of 2023 were filed by Alpha and one Sanjay Bhalla
respectively in so far as the judgment pertained to Company Appeal (AT)
(Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Roma and Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare
Association filed Civil Appeal Nos. 2491 and 2466 of 2023 respectively
against the judgment in the context of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630
of 2022. Civil Appeal Nos. 2406-2407 of 2023 were filed by Earth
Infrastructures Limited, the corporate debtor (CD), against the judgment
in the context of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 629 and 630 of 2022.
Civil Appeal No. 3438 of 2023 was filed by Earth Copia Owners Society in
relation to Company Appeal No. (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Civil Appeal
Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 were filed by Earth United Consumer Association
assailing the judgment apropos all three appeals. Civil Appeal No. 2756
of 2023 was filed by GNIDA aggrieved by denial of certain reliefs by the
NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Civil Appeal No.
2763 was also filed by GNIDA on similar grounds in relation to Company
Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. Civil Appeal No. 4619 of 2023 was filed
by Unific TechOne Patrons Independent Association (UTOPIA) against
3
For short, ‘the Code’
3
the judgment insofar as it pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629
of 2022. Lastly, Earth Property Buyers Association filed Civil Appeal
(Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 in relation to all three appeals.
4. As regards the appeals filed under Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 19132 of
2023, we find that there is a delay of 34 days in their filing. These appeals
were filed only on 04.05.2023 against the judgment dated 30.01.2023.
Section 62(2) of the Code empowers this Court to condone delay in filing
up to 15 days but not more. These appeals are, thus, clearly barred by
time and cannot be entertained. The appeals filed under Civil Appeal
(Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 are, therefore, dismissed on this short ground.
5. By order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2023
and batch, 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
4
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. Clause 8 reads thus: -
‘8. In case bidders have formed a consortium: -
(a) Members of the consortium will have to specify one Lead Member
who alone shall be authorized to correspond with the Authority. The Lead
member should be the single largest shareholder having at least 26%
share in the consortium. The shareholding of the lead member in the
consortium shall retain at least 26% till the completion certificate of at
least one phase of the project is obtained from the Greater Noida
Authority. Each member of the consortium with equity stake of at least
10% will be considered as a "relevant member”. The Lead Member of the
consortium must necessarily be a Firm/Company registered in India with
the appropriate statutory Authority.
(b) The lead member and the relevant members should jointly fulfil the
minimum requirement of net worth, solvency, turnover and experience. In
case the tenderer/consortium member is a company, the qualifications of
the holding company(ies) of the lead member and the relevant members
or their subsidiary companies shall also be considered as the
qualifications of the applying company/consortium member.
(c) In case of a Consortium, the members shall submit a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the
scheme(s), and in case a plot is allotted to them, the MOA shall clearly
define the role and responsibility of each member in the consortium,
particularly with regard to arranging debt and equity for the project and
its implementation. MOA should be submitted in original duly
registered/notarized with the appropriate authority.
(d) The members shall submit a registered/notarized Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the scheme,
and in case a plot is allotted to them, to form Special Purpose
Company(ies), hereinafter called SPCs, that will subsequently carryout
all responsibilities as the allottee. The registered MOA must specify the
equity shareholding of each member of the Consortium in the proposed
SPCs. The SPCs must necessarily be a Firm/Company registered in
India with the appropriate statutory Authority.
5
(e) Execution of the lease deed will be made in favour of either the
relevant member(s) or the Special Purpose Company(ies) (SPC)(s),
which should be a registered firm or an incorporated company. The
relevant members/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, ETIPL, was a SPC, comprising EIL (78% shareholding –
lead member), Raus Infras Limited (11% shareholding – relevant member)
and Shalini Holdings Limited (11% shareholding – relevant member). The
lease deed also recorded that GNIDA had been informed that the SPC
members had agreed amongst themselves that EIL would always remain
the lead member of the SPC and its shareholding therein would remain
unchanged till the occupancy/completion certificate of at least one phase
6
of the project was obtained from GNIDA. The lease deed, however,
permitted the SPC to transfer/sell up to 49% of its shareholding, again
subject to the same aforestated condition. The total premium payable
under the lease deed was ₹74,26,95,000/-. The lease deed noted that
10% of the premium plus the excess area amount, adding up to
₹7,46,91,000/-, was paid by the lessee, ETIPL. There was to be a
moratorium of 24 months, during which period, only the interest was
payable in half-yearly instalments and upon expiry of said period, the
balance 90%, i.e., ₹66,84,25,500/-, was to be paid in 16 half-yearly
instalments. Instalment Nos. 1 to 4, the half-yearly interest payments,
commenced from 19.09.2010, and the premium payments started from
19.09.2012, with the final instalment payable on 19.03.2020. After
execution of the lease deed, an unregistered development agreement was
entered into on 09.09.2010 between ETIPL and EIL, whereby ETIPL
conferred the right to develop the land upon EIL. The area-sharing ratio
was stipulated as 18% to ETIPL and 82% to EIL.
Separately and much earlier, GNIDA had allotted 60,705 square
8.
metres of land in Plot No. 1 at Sector Tech Zone area in Greater Nodia
Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, to NIIT
Multimedia Limited for development of IT industries and IT enabled
services for 90 years. Pursuant thereto, lease deed dated 04.02.2008 was
executed by GNIDA in favour of NIIT Multimedia Limited over a reduced
7
area of 58,866 square metres. Pertinently, this company became a
subsidiary of EIL in 2011 and its change of name as Neo Multimedia
Limited was approved by GNIDA on 21.02.2011. Development Agreement
dated 25.04.2011 was executed by and between Neo Multimedia Limited
and EIL, whereby the development on the subject plot of land was to be
undertaken by EIL.
GNIDA had also allotted 20,235 square metres of land in Plot No.
9.
48, Sector Knowledge 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.
In effect, EIL was to undertake the development on all three plots of
10.
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
8
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 projects were also registered with the Uttar Pradesh Real
Estate Regulatory Authority.
While so, at the instance of Deepak Khanna, a financial creditor,
11.
CIRP was initiated against EIL. His application under Section 7 of the
Code was admitted by the NCLT on 06.06.2018. Initially, one Surinder
Kumar Juneja was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)
for EIL, the CD. The NCLT caused public announcement of initiation of the
CIRP against EIL under Section 13 of the Code on 12.06.2018. The
Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted and its first meeting was
held on 05.12.2018. Later, Akash Singhal was substituted as the
Resolution Professional (RP) by the CoC. The CoC comprised the HDFC
Bank and 4,229 allottees, i.e., home/office space buyers.
‘Invitation for Expression of Interest’ in Form G was issued by the
12.
RP on 19.04.2019 in respect of all the projects. However, there was no
response thereto and the RP then invited resolution plans project-wise
also, as an alternative, in addition to plans for all the projects. The revised
Form G was published on 22.05.2019. In this regard, we may refer to the
‘Clarification’ to Regulation 36A (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)
Regulations, 2016, whereby a Resolution Professional, after approval of
9
the CoC, is empowered to invite a resolution plan for each real estate
project or group of projects of the corporate debtor. This clarification was
inserted with effect from 15.02.2024, vide Notification dated 15.02.2024.
Even before this amendment, the NCLAT and this Court have affirmed
that the CIRP in real estate cases can be project-specific, limiting such
insolvency process to projects in default so as to ensure protection of
homebuyers in other projects, which still remain viable. In
Indiabulls
Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Ram Kishore Arora and
4
others , this Court refused to interfere with the NCLAT’s order permitting
insolvency process project-wise. More recently, in Mansi Brar Fernandes
5
vs. Shubha Sharma and another , this Court observed that resolution of
real estate insolvency should, as a rule, proceed on a project-specific
basis rather than against the corporate debtor in its entirety, unless
circumstances justify otherwise, as this would protect solvent projects and
genuine homebuyers from collateral prejudice.
Pursuant to the revised Form G, three resolution applicants came
13.
forward, viz., BPT Infra Projects Private Limited, Roma and Alpha. BPT
Infra Projects Limited’s plan was rejected by the CoC. Roma’s resolution
th
plan for ‘Earth Towne’ was approved by the CoC in its 14 meeting held
on 26.08.2019 . After the CoC’s approval, GNIDA addressed letter dated
4
AIR 2023 SC 2273
5
(2025) 259 Comp Cas 769 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1972
10
18.09.2019 to the RP, stating that the dues payable to it by ETIPL were
₹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.
At this stage, we may note that, apart from the projects that were to
14.
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
th
at its 19 meeting held on 11.11.2019. Thereafter, it was approved by the
NCLT on 08.06.2021 in relation to three projects, viz., Earth TechOne,
Earth Sapphire and Earth Copia. The fourth project, viz., Earth Iconic, was
dealt with separately by the NCLT in another CIRP initiated by Celestial
Estates Private Limited and Alpha’s resolution plan was approved for that
project in that case. The order dated 08.06.2021 passed by the NCLT,
therefore, covered the remaining three projects. However, as stated
earlier, Earth Copia had nothing to do with GNIDA. Notably, one of the
appeals filed before the NCLAT by GNIDA assailed NCLT’s order dated
08.06.2021, but no distinction was drawn by GNIDA between the projects
that it had an interest in and Earth Copia, which had nothing to do with it.
11
The impugned judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the NCLAT also lost
sight of this aspect, as reference was made therein to only two projects,
i.e., Earth Sapphire and Earth TechOne, as being the subject matter of
NCLT’s order dated 08.06.2021 in the context of Alpha’s resolution plan.
IA No. 4235 of 2021 was filed by Roma in CP (IB) No. 401(ND)/2017
15.
seeking a direction to GNIDA to transfer the leased land in its favour. The
application was opposed by GNIDA contending that such transfer would
be against the terms of ETIPL’s lease deed. However, the NCLT allowed
the IA by order dated 07.12.2021, leading to GNIDA challenging it by way
of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 180 of 2022. The NCLAT passed an
interim order on 01.06.2022 in GNIDA’s appeals to the effect that GNIDA
was not obliged to transfer the leasehold lands in favour of the successful
resolution applicants pursuant to the NCLT’s orders. This interim order
attained finality on 14.07.2022, when this Court dismissed Civil Appeal
No. 4748 of 2022 filed by Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association.
The above sequence of events indicates that the land leases were
16.
in favour of the CD’s two subsidiaries. As regards Earth Towne, the land
allotment was in favour of the consortium, comprising EIL, Raus Infras
and Shalini Holdings Limited. However, as per GNIDA’s own scheme, the
SPC, viz., ETIPL, came to be incorporated and a lease was executed by
GNIDA in its favour. The lease deed, however, made it clear that the lead
member, EIL, was to retain the major shareholding therein, initially shown
12
as 78%, and was to retain its status as the lead member till 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 ₹1 lakh and it was EIL that paid ₹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 ₹215,87,18,190/-. GNIDA
also claimed that, as on 24.03.2022, Neo Multimedia Private Limited was
liable to pay it ₹19,76,10,064/- and Nishtha Software Private Limited had
to pay it ₹11,15,15,009/-. That apart, additional compensation and lease
rentals were also allegedly payable. GNIDA claimed that several notices
of defaults in payment were issued to these lessees also.
13
18. Per contra , the other side contended before the NCLAT that GNIDA
was fully aware of the fact that the projects were being executed by EIL,
as evidenced by its letter dated 11.05.2015 to the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, wherein GNIDA itself mentioned that EIL
was engaged in the construction work. In this context it was argued before
the NCLAT that ETIPL was nothing but an alter ego of EIL and this was a
fit case to pierce and lift the corporate veil. It was also contended that the
companies had common directors and promoters and ETIPL had no
separate business of its own. It was pointed out that the RP sought
relevant information/documents from GNIDA in respect of all three
projects, viz., Earth TechOne, Earth Sapphire Court and Earth Towne,
under his letter dated 28.05.2019 and, therefore, GNIDA could not claim
ignorance of the CIRP proceedings. On this basis, it was argued that
GNIDA, having kept silent all through the proceedings, could not seek to
overturn the orders passed by the NCLT approving the resolution plans,
which were binding on all the stakeholders. Alpha contended before the
th
NCLAT that its resolution plan had been approved at the 19 CoC meeting
held on 11.11.2019 with a whopping 91.39% vote share. According to it,
GNIDA filed its claim at a belated stage only on 11.11.2021 with the IRP
and not the RP, despite being aware of the CIRP proceedings.
19. Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association got impleaded before
the NCLAT. Its grievance was that the construction of Earth Towne stood
14
stalled since 2016 and members of the association, being homebuyers,
were suffering irreparable loss. The association pointed out that the RP
had admitted the claims of 1,878 homebuyers, amounting to ₹438 crore.
It stated that its members had met the Additional Chief Executive Officer
of GNIDA on 28.06.2017, long before initiation of the CIRP against EIL,
but despite the same no steps were taken by GNIDA to either recover its
dues or hasten completion of the project. According to it, the Additional
Chief Executive Officer of GNIDA had told 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.
15
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 that despite such
steps being taken, GNIDA had failed to take action against EIL. They
contended before the NCLAT that Alpha’s resolution plan contemplated
waiver of the dues payable to GNIDA, but if GNIDA refused to waive such
dues, the office space buyers undertook to bear the liability. They pointed
out that Alpha undertook to complete construction and deliver units to the
buyers in five years but the same stood compromised by GNIDA’s stance.
21. Though it was also argued by the contesting respondents before the
NCLAT that GNIDA’s appeals were time-barred, in terms of Section 61(2)
of the Code, the NCLAT rejected their contention, as extension of time
had been granted by this Court, by freezing limitation, in Suo Moto Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, titled ‘In re: Cognizance for Extension of
, owing to the Covid-19 pandemic. The appeals were,
Limitation’
therefore, held to be within time. Having considered the matter on merits,
the NCLAT framed the following issues for consideration:
(I) Whether in the CIRP proceedings of the Corporate Debtor, i.e.
Earth Infrastructures Limited, the assets of the land holding companies,
i.e., subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor can be treated to be assets of the
Corporate Debtor?
(II) Whether, in the Resolution Plans submitted by the Successful
Resolution Applicants, i.e., Roma Unicon Designex Consortium and
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited, the assets of the subsidiary,
16
i.e., lease lands could have been dealt and the Resolution Plan could
legally contain a clause for transfer of the lease hold rights by the
Appellant in favour of Successful Resolution Applicant without there
being any prior permission from the Appellant?
(III) Whether assets of the subsidiary companies can be dealt with in
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of holding Company?
(IV) Whether the Appellant was required to be made party to the CIRP
proceedings and heard before approval of any resolution plan dealing
with the Project land?
(V) Whether, Resolution Professional acted within the ambit of I & B
Code in giving a certificate that Resolution Plans submitted by Roma
Unicon Designex Consortium and Alpha Corp Development Private
Limited are in accordance with the provisions of the Code?
(VI) Whether Appellant was aware of the development carried out by the
Corporate Debtor on the lease 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
17
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 approval of the lessor,
GNIDA. The NCLAT noted that transfer of lands by GNIDA was subject to
the terms in the lease deeds and the permission to transfer the lands was
to be granted by GNIDA on fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein.
Ignoring the same, the resolution plans contained provisions, whereby
GNIDA was obligated to transfer the project lands to the successful
resolution applicants. Observing that GNIDA was not a party to the
development agreements/MoU that EIL had with the lessees, its
subsidiaries, whereby it undertook the development on the subject lands,
the NCLAT held that GNIDA was neither the creditor of EIL, the CD, nor
was it a stakeholder in the resolution plans and was, therefore, not bound
by them in any manner.
Adverting to the contention that this was a fit case for lifting the
24.
corporate veil, reference was made by the NCLAT to the decision of this
Court in Vodafone International Holdings BV vs. Union of India and
6
another , which took note of the legal status of holding companies and
6
(2012) 6 SCC 613
18
subsidiary companies as they were, in essence, separate legal entities.
Reference was also made to Jaypee Kensington Boulevard
Apartments Welfare Association and others vs. NBCC (India) Limited
7
and others , wherein this Court held that only the assets of the corporate
debtor could be subjected to the resolution plan and not the assets of its
subsidiary. That was also a case involving the grant of leasehold rights to
a corporate debtor by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development
Authority (YEIDA), an authority constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, like GNIDA. This Court
held that, without the approval of that authority, no transfer could have
taken place even by way of a sub-lease. Reference was also made to the
decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
8
(MCGM) vs. Abhilash Lal and others , which held to the same effect.
25. The NCLAT then referred to the condition pertaining to transfer in
the lease deed dated 01.09.2010 and opined that the resolution plan could
not have contained a clause for transfer of that land without GNIDA
approving such transfer. The NCLAT, accordingly, answered Issue No. I,
holding that the assets of the three subsidiary companies of EIL, the CD,
could not be treated as its assets. Issue No. II was also answered in the
negative, holding that the resolution plans of Roma and Alpha could not
7
(2022) 1 SCC 401 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 253
8
(2020) 13 SCC 234
19
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.
On Issue No. IV, the NCLAT held that GNIDA ought to have been
26.
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 development
being carried out by EIL was not sufficient to be treated as consent for
transfer of the lands to the successful resolution applicants.
27. On Issue No. VII, the NCLAT took note of the fact that the
homebuyers had approached the Allahabad High Court, which passed an
order on 23.02.2016 directing them to represent the matter to the Chief
Executive Officer of GNIDA, which was then required to deal with the
20
matter. Pursuant thereto, complaints were made by two associations of
buyers, i.e., of Earth Sapphire Court and Earth TechOne, to the Chief
Executive Officer of GNIDA on 27.07.2016, 02.08.2016 and 20.06.2017.
Reference was also made to the meeting held with the Chief Executive
Officer of GNIDA and the Minister concerned on 11.05.2017. Despite the
buyers doing all this, no action was taken by GNIDA. The NCLAT also
noted that during the meetings held with the allottees, it was stated on
behalf of GNIDA that the issue of penal interest would be considered
favourably. The NCLAT also noted that one of the obligations under the
lease deeds that GNIDA had executed in favour of the lessees was that
GNIDA would monitor development of the projects. The obligation to
monitor the projects, per the NCLAT, included the obligation to ensure that
the projects were completed in time and that necessary action would be
initiated against defaulting parties. Reference was made by the NCLAT to
the decision of this Court in
Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida
9
, wherein this Court had observed the ‘public trust doctrine’ is
and others
a part of the law of the land and has grown from Article 21 of the
Constitution. It was noted therein that the power vesting in a public
authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty, to be exercised in
larger public and social interest, and public authorities could not play fast
9
(2011) 6 SCC 508
21
and loose with the powers vested in them. The NCLAT observed that the
facts brought on record demonstrated that hundreds of crores were
received from the allottees, who were waiting for the past several years to
take possession of the units allotted to them, but the projects stood stalled
since 2016. The NCLAT also noted the offer made by the associations of
buyers of Earth Sapphire Court and Earth TechOne that they were ready
to pay the dues of GNIDA in the interest of development of the projects.
The NCLAT concluded that GNIDA had 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
22
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
associations, without charging penal interest, within a time frame. The
fresh resolution plans submitted by the resolution applicants were to be
examined by the RP and placed before the CoC for consideration and
approval. GNIDA was made a party to the CIRP proceedings and was held
entitled to participate in the process thereafter. The steps to be taken
pursuant to the judgment, till submission of an application by the RP to
the NCLT for approval of the plans, if any, were to be completed within six
months. The CIRP period was extended by six months from that date. The
appeals were disposed of with these directions, setting aside the orders
dated 05.04.2021, 08.06.2021 and 07.12.2021 passed by the NCLT.
29. This being the factual milieu, we may first take up the issue of EIL’s
Gurugram project, viz., Earth Copia. The land on which Earth Copia was
to be developed was acquired by Aurochem Buildtech Private Limited, a
wholly owned subsidiary of EIL, through Collaboration Agreement dated
30.07.2010 with eight landowners. Tripartite Agreement dated 04.05.2012
was then executed, whereby possession and full development rights were
transferred to EIL and the landowners’ claims stood fully settled.
According to Earth Copia Owners Society, the appellant in Civil Appeal
No. 3438 of 2023, it comprised 393 homebuyers of 536 units in Earth
23
Copia and majority of those homebuyers voted in favour of Alpha’s
resolution plan dated 15.10.2019. Earth Copia Owners Society pointed
out that GNIDA’s appeals before the NCLAT were only in relation to lands
leased out by it to the subsidiary companies of EIL and, therefore, Earth
Copia was not part of that litigation. It further pointed out that Alpha’s
resolution plan dated 15.10.2019 was severable, as it provided that any
portion thereof which was held invalid would not affect the remaining
parts, which would survive independently. It also pointed out that three
blocks of the project had been completed up to 90% and the remaining
blocks were still in the range of 40-80% completion. The Society
contended that the NCLAT erroneously set aside the approval of Alpha’s
entire resolution plan without noticing that the order dated 08.06.2021
passed by the NCLT included approval of that resolution plan in relation
to Earth Copia also, which had nothing whatsoever to do with GNIDA.
We find considerable force in this argument, as GNIDA had no grievance
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
24
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 individual homebuyers, who may have
been part of the minority that dissented thereto, to gain a foothold by
opposing the majority’s decision. A few persons within such class cannot
dissent with the majority vote in favour of the resolution plan. In Jaypee
Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association ( supra ), this
Court held that allottees, even if not a homogeneous group, could vote
either to approve or disapprove the resolution plan and even if divergence
of views within the class may exist, when casting a vote in the CoC, the
vote would have to be cast as a class.
31. Significantly, this intervenor had raised objections to the approval of
Alpha’s resolution plan but the same were rejected by the NCLT in its order
dated 08.06.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the intervenor filed Company
Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 283 of 2022 but the same was dismissed by the
25
NCLAT, vide order dated 12.10.2022. Therein, the NCLAT noted that, if
some of the homebuyers had not voted in favour of the plan, they still had
to sail with the majority and the procedural violations alleged by them were
not sufficient to interfere with the order approving the resolution plan. The
NCLAT noted that the resolution plan was approved by 91.39% voting
share in the CoC and the Earth Buyers Association for Justice was not a
member of the CoC. Out of the 35 homebuyers who were sought to be
brought on record individually by way of an application, 29 homebuyers
had not voted for the plan. The NCLAT referred to Section 25A(3A) of the
Code and observed that once the authorised representative of that class
of voters cast his vote on behalf of the financial creditors he represents as
per the decision taken by a vote of more than 50% of the voting share of
those financial creditors, who had cast their vote, there is no possibility for
the dissenting financial creditors in that class to maintain a separate voice
of dissent against the majority vote. The NCLAT, accordingly, held that no
grounds were made out to interfere with the order approving the resolution
plan and dismissed the intervenor’s appeal. This order attained finality as
the intervenor did not choose to approach this Court by filing an appeal
against the said dismissal order.
32. Though Earth Buyers Association for Justice claims that it
represents 949 buyers in EIL’s four projects, as of April, 2025, the fact
remains that it was unsuccessful in its attempts before the NCLT and the
26
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.
We may also note that, upon a complaint, the Insolvency and
33.
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 managing EIL’s affairs,
including the maintaining of bank accounts, preservation of assets and
records, representing EIL before judicial and quasi-judicial fora, etc.
34. As regards the other three projects on GNIDA’s leased lands, we
may note that GNIDA is empowered under Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, to allot land on lease basis subject
27
to the terms and conditions determined by it. It is pursuant to this power
that the subject lands were leased out by it to the companies under the
control of EIL. We find that the lease deeds executed by GNIDA in favour
of the lessees, viz., the three companies, specifically provided that the
lessees would develop and erect the proposed buildings on the demised
premises in accordance with the plans approved by it, duly ensuring
compliance with the requirements set out in the schedules to the lease
deeds. The lessees were not to erect or permit to be erected any new
building without the permission in writing of GNIDA and except in
accordance with the terms of such permission in writing and the plan, if
any, approved by GNIDA. The lessees were to develop the projects
meeting the stipulated norms of development as set out in the lease
deeds. The lessees were to complete construction of the projects within
the stipulated time frames, as set out in the lease deeds - seven years for
all the three lessees. The lease deeds also provided that, in the event the
lessees failed to complete construction within that time, it was lawful for
GNIDA, without prejudice to other rights, to re-enter upon the premises
and determine the leases. The lease deeds specifically provided that
GNIDA would monitor implementation of the projects.
35. Insofar as the lease deed dated 01.09.2010 executed by GNIDA in
favour of ETIPL is concerned, the same provided that the lessee was to
use the allotted plot for construction of group housing/flats/plots and that
28
it was entitled to allot the dwelling units on sub-lease basis to its allotees.
Further transfer/sub-lease was, however, to be governed by GNIDA’s
transfer policy. The sub-lessees were to use the premises only for
residential use. The construction was to be completed within seven years
from the date of execution of the lease deed but, prior to that, the lessee
had to complete construction of a minimum 50% of the total floor area
ratio of the allotted plot, as per 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
29
Gurgaon. As GNIDA had not intimated its dues in time, the Information
Memorandum mentioned only the estimated dues payable to GNIDA.
37. Roma’s resolution plan was approved by the CoC on 26.08.2019 and
the RP filed an application before the NCLT on 03.09.2019 seeking its
approval. It was only thereafter, on 18.09.2019, that GNIDA addressed a
letter to the RP stating its claimed dues in relation to Earth Towne. On
11.11.2019, Alpha’s resolution plan was approved by the CoC for Earth
TechOne, Earth Sapphire Court and Earth Copia. No claim was filed by
GNIDA in relation to Earth Sapphire. On 11.11.2021, GNIDA filed a claim
in relation to its dues for Earth TechOne, not before the RP, but before the
IRP, who had exited from the picture long prior thereto.
38. GNIDA, being an operational creditor of Neo Multimedia Limited and
Nishtha Software Private Limited, could file its claims during the CIRP
proceedings against EIL, under Section 60(5)(b) of the Code. NCLT had
jurisdiction thereunder to entertain claims by or against the corporate
debtor, including claims by or against its subsidiary situated in India.
Despite such entitlement, GNIDA failed to file its claims with the RP. It was
only on 11.11.2021 that GNIDA filed its claim with the displaced IRP about
its dues from Neo Multimedia Limited but no steps were taken by it in
relation to Nishtha Software Private Limited.
39. This Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo , vide its
order dated 13.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2023 and batch.
30
However, unmindful of the said order, GNIDA cancelled the allotment of
lands in favour of Neo Multimedia Limited and Nishtha Software Private
Limited, by order dated 16.06.2023. This order was communicated to the
RP only on 22.07.2023 but was not informed to this Court on 04.07.2023,
11.07.2023 and 17.07.2023, when the matters were listed. It was only
after the RP filed IA No. 180402 of 2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2406-2407
of 2023, that GNIDA withdrew the aforestated cancellation order on
19.08.2025.
40. This Court also passed a separate order on 17.07.2023 in Civil
Appeal No. 4619 of 2023, filed by UTOPIA, calling upon GNIDA to file an
affidavit stating whether it was ready and willing to take up the projects
and complete the construction so as to give homes/office spaces to the
buyers on the terms agreed between such buyers and the builders. In the
event GNIDA was not ready to do so, it was called upon to indicate how it
intended to protect the interests of the buyers in 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
31
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 said to have been carried out in
2018 and it was found that a boundary wall had been constructed and the
buildings were under construction. As regards ETIPL, a site inspection
was stated to have been carried out by an auditor on 28.02.2018, which
reflected that the project was lagging behind, but no steps were taken.
GNIDA also furnished details of the notices issued by it to the
42.
lessees in the context of defaults in payment. Notices were issued to Neo
Multimedia Limited on 08.10.2012, 09.01.2019, 08.02.2019, 25.04.2019,
06.05.2019 and 04.03.2020. Nishtha Software Private Limited was issued
notices on 28.09.2016, 19.06.2017, 12.10.2018, 02.01.2019, 08.02.2019,
18.03.2019, 22.10.2019 and 04.03.2020. ETIPL was issued notices on
15.10.2013, 25.05.2015, 08.07.2016, 06.09.2016, 30.09.2016 and
13.07.2018. GNIDA stated that a public notice was put up on its website
32
on 05.10.2017, listing defaulting builders, which included Neo Multimedia
Limited, with dues of ₹7,65,48,821/-; Nitisha Software Private Limited,
with dues of ₹2,09,12,037/-; and ETIPL, with dues of ₹105,02,87,896/-.
43. Thereafter, the Chairman of GNIDA filed an affidavit, notarised on
25.09.2025. He stated therein that he was holding office as an additional
duty as there was no full-time Chairman appointed for GNIDA. He stated
that the Chief Executive Officer of GNIDA was its highest full-time officer.
He apologized for the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by GNIDA
cancelling the allotment of lands to Neo Multimedia Limited and Nishtha
Software Private Limited. He referred to the order dated 19.08.2025,
recalling the same, and stated that no further action with regard to
resumption of possession or refund of amounts was taken thereafter.
According to him, the outstanding dues, including interest, payable to
GNIDA as on 31.08.2025, stood as follows: Neo Multimedia Limited -
₹31,82,88,309/-; Nishtha Software Private Limited - ₹17,57,25,184/-; and
ETIPL - ₹309,79,44,038/-. We may note that insofar as Neo Multimedia
Limited is concerned, out of the total dues of ₹31,82,88,309/-,
₹1,97,91,781/- was penal interest payable on the premium dues;
₹1,23,18,440/- was the penal interest payable on the additional
compensation; and ₹11,34,81,931/- was the time-extension penalty.
Therefore, ₹14,55,92,152/-, in all, was attributable to penal interest/penal
charges. Similarly, out of the total dues of ₹17,57,25,184/- payable by
33
Nishtha Software Private Limited, ₹43,12,694/- was the penal interest on
the additional compensation; ₹87,29,431/- was the penal interest on the
lease rent; and ₹8,31,69,781/- was the time-extension penalty. Thus,
₹9,62,11,906/- out of the total ₹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 ₹309,79,44,039/-, the penal interest on the
premium dues was ₹31,88,34,014/- while ₹5,48,38,863/- was the penal
interest on the additional compensation and ₹4,26,96,421/- was the penal
interest on the lease rent along with time-extension penalty of
₹18,02,05,897/-, totalling to ₹59,65,75,195/-. Therefore, devoid of penal
interest/penal charges, the dues of ETIPL were just over ₹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 raising claims
in that regard. GNIDA, therefore, has a grievance apropos the direction of
the NCLAT to drop its penal interest/penal charges and to recalculate its
dues. According to GNIDA, the terms of its lease deeds are sacrosanct
and ought not to be interfered with, be it during the CIRP proceedings or
thereafter. Though GNIDA would contend that the cost at which the
successful resolution applicants, Alpha and Roma, would be selling the
34
homes/office spaces would include the cost of the land and construction
apart from a profit component, the fact remains that the land would not be
sold to the home/office space buyers, but they would only assume the
status of sub-lessees. The ownership of the land would not stand
transferred and would remain with GNIDA. This was the original intent of
the scheme of allotment, and it does not stand altered even if the
resolution plans are given effect to. What is contemplated under the
resolution plans is merely transfer of possession of the lands to the
successful resolution applicants to enable them to complete the projects
and to deliver the units to the allottees, as sub-lessees.
45. In Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit
10
Singh Soni and another , a 3-Judge Bench of this Court opined that, in
terms of the Section 13-A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976, GNIDA has to be treated as a secured creditor in
respect of the amount payable to it by a corporate debtor and in that
regard, a charge is statutorily created on the assets of such corporate
debtor. Though reliance is placed on this decision by GNIDA, it is not open
to it to approbate and reprobate. On the one hand, GNIDA contends that
EIL, the CD, had nothing to do with the lands leased out by it to the three
companies and that those lands ought not to have formed part of EIL’s
10
(2024) 6 SCC 767
35
assets during the CIRP proceedings. On the other hand, GNIDA raised
claims before the IRP and the RP and it also complained of not being kept
abreast of CIRP proceedings against EIL.
46. Significantly, it was only on 11.11.2021 that GNIDA filed a claim in
relation to Earth TechOne but, surprisingly, GNIDA addressed its letter to
the IRP and not to the RP, though the IRP was replaced as long back as
in March, 2019. This claim was also belated as Alpha’s resolution plan
was approved by the CoC on 11.11.2019 and by the NCLT on 08.06.2021.
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 ₹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
36
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
11
Limited vs. Mukul Kumar and another . Surprisingly, GNIDA never
raised a claim for its alleged dues in relation to Earth Sapphire Court.
Further, we may note that GNIDA is conveniently ignoring certain
47.
crucial facts. Two letters had been addressed to GNIDA after initiation of
the CIRP proceedings against EIL - the IRP sent letter dated 19.12.2018
while the RP, after his appointment by the CoC, addressed letter dated
28.05.2019. These letters reflect that GNIDA was informed about the
initiation of the CIRP proceedings against EIL; that the development rights
over the project lands leased out by GNIDA to the three companies
controlled by EIL were also included in the CIRP proceedings; and GNIDA
was called upon to inform its dues. Despite the non-submission of claims
by GNIDA within time, the RP intimated the dues of GNIDA to the
prospective resolution applicants after gathering the same from the
resources available. The RP’s Information Memorandum clearly specified
that only the development rights and leasehold rights of the lessees, which
were 100% subsidiaries of EIL, were included therein.
48. Intermittent and sporadic notices with regard to defaults in payment
are all that GNIDA has to offer at this stage. We may note that, though
11
(2023) 10 SCC 718
37
payments were allegedly stopped by the lessees, viz., Neo Multimedia
Limited, Nishtha Software Private Limited and ETIPL, on 06.01.2011,
20.09.2010 and 28.02.2013 respectively, GNIDA did not bother to follow
up on such defaults on a regular basis and only occasional notices were
issued to the lessees. As regards Neo Multimedia Limited, the first notice
was issued only in October, 2012 followed by a notice, over 8 years later,
on 09.01.2019 and three notices, thereafter, in February, April and May,
2019, and the last notice on 04.03.2020. All the notices, except the first
one, were issued after commencement of the CIRP proceedings! As
regards Nishtha Software Private Limited, the last payment was allegedly
made on 20.09.2010 but default notices were issued by GNIDA only in
2016, i.e., on 28.09.2016, followed by a notice more than 8 months later
on 19.06.2017. Thereafter, with a gap of over one year and three months,
GNIDA issued a notice on 12.10.2018. Later notices were in the year 2019
and the last was in March, 2020. Insofar as ETIPL is concerned, the last
payment was stated to have been made on 28.02.2013 and the first
default notice was issued by GNIDA 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.
38
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
development of the projects on all three plots of land leased out by GNIDA
to the three companies. Having addressed a letter to the police authorities
in relation to EIL’s construction on the land leased out to ETIPL, GNIDA
cannot now seek to claim ignorance of the reality that it was EIL that was
undertaking the construction of the projects on all three leased lands. This
is further fortified by the fact that all three lessees submitted documents
to GNIDA while seeking approval of building plans/sanctions based on the
certification secured from various authorities by EIL itself. Though GNIDA
would contend that it was not a party to the applications made by EIL for
obtaining permissions/NOCs from various authorities, there is no
escaping the fact that the lessees submitted all such documents to GNIDA
39
for securing sanction and permission for building plans. The question of
GNIDA claiming ignorance of EIL’s role in the development of the projects,
therefore, does not arise.
50. Turning a blind eye to all that was going on and also not going on,
GNIDA did not even choose to be vigilant after initiation of the CIRP
proceedings against EIL. GNIDA was informed of the same by the IRP in
December, 2018 and by the RP in March, 2019, but took no steps to
participate in the proceedings. On the other hand, GNIDA seeks to blame
the RP for not informing it of the progress of the CIRP proceedings!!
GNIDA’s correspondence was inconsistent and impulsive, unmindful of
the strict timelines contemplated by the Code. The lack of responsibility
and application of mind on the part of GNIDA is manifest from the fact that
even when it did submit its hugely belated claim on 11.11.2021 in relation
to its alleged dues from Neo Multimedia Limited, it addressed it to the IRP
who had long before exited from the scene upon appointment of the RP
by the CoC. GNIDA never ever raised a claim in relation to the dues of
Nishtha Software Private Limited. Even as regards its dues from ETIPL,
we may note that GNIDA addressed its letter to the RP only on
18.09.2019, after the approval of Roma’s resolution plan by the CoC on
26.08.2019. The same non-application of mind is demonstrated by
GNIDA’s failure to point out to the NCLAT that its appeal against the
NCLT’s order dated 08.06.2021 was limited only to the projects on its own
40
leased lands and did not extend to the approval of Alpha’s resolution 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 ₹149 crore had to be admitted.
Before this Court, GNIDA attempted to bring in a third party, viz.,
52.
Engineering Projects (India) Limited (EPIL), at the behest of the Earth
Buyers Association for Justice, to complete EIL’s stalled projects. We may
note that EPIL, itself, has not come forward to stand by any such offer and
only a letter addressed by it is relied upon. Perusal of the letter dated
23.12.2024 addressed to GNIDA by EPIL reflects that, pursuant to a
41
meeting held on 21.12.2024, the Executive Director of EPIL stated that
they were ready and willing to complete the stalled projects of EIL situated
at Greater Noida. Having stated so, he said that this was an ‘in-principle
approval’ which was contingent upon further study of the financial and
other documents/information of the projects that would be made available
to the company. It was, therefore, not a firm or unconditional commitment
by EPIL. Significantly, EPIL did not even choose to come before us, if it
was really keen on pursuing its offer. Therefore, EPIL’s offer is not worthy
of consideration and is, accordingly, eschewed from consideration.
53. The sheet anchor of GNIDA’s case is that the assets of subsidiary
companies cannot be made part of the assets of the holding company that
was subjected to CIRP proceedings. Section 2(87) of the Companies Act,
2013, defines a subsidiary company or subsidiary to mean a separate
legal entity. Reliance was placed by GNIDA upon the recent judgment of
this Court in
BRS Ventures Investments Limited vs. SREI
12
, which reiterated that a
Infrastructure Finance Limited and another
holding company and its subsidiaries are distinct legal entities and merely
because the holding company owns the entire shareholding in the
subsidiary company, it would not dilute its separate legal existence. No
doubt, the concept of holding companies and subsidiary companies is
12
(2025) 1 SCC 456
42
firmly entrenched in our corporate scenario and once it is established that
the holding and subsidiary companies are independent legal entities in
their own right, the sanctity of such legal status has to be maintained
unless circumstances exist that require lifting/piercing of the corporate
veil. The question that arises is whether this was a fit case to lift the
corporate veil. Though the NCLAT was averse to doing so, we are inclined
to hold otherwise. In that regard, we may refer to the observations of a
Constitution Bench in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts
13
Ltd. and others in the context of 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.’
As is clear from the aforestated observations when, in reality,
54.
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
13
(1986) 1 SCC 264
43
14
and others , this Court affirmed that where protection of public interest
is of paramount importance or where a company has been formed to
evade obligations enforced by law and by the Courts, the Court would
disregard the corporate veil. It was further observed that this principle
would be applied even to group companies so that one is able to look at
the economic entity of the group as a whole.
Neo Multimedia Limited and Nishtha Software Private Limited were
55.
both wholly owned subsidiaries of EIL, the CD. They had leases over the
lands in which EIL was to develop the projects, viz., Earth TechOne and
Earth Sapphire Court. ETIPL was incorporated only to enable GNIDA’s
leasing of land for development of Earth Towne and was controlled by EIL,
with a 98% shareholding. ETIPL, therefore, stands on a different footing
from the other two companies, insofar as GNIDA is concerned. In any
event, we may note that all three companies either share common
directors with EIL and/or have their relations as directors. The only assets
of the three companies were the lands leased out to them by GNIDA for
these projects. The companies’ shareholdings indicate that EIL was the
dominant and majority shareholder.
56. Further, GNIDA was clearly aware that it was EIL, the CD, that was
developing the projects on the lands leased out by it to the three
14
(2019) 2 SCC 1
44
companies. GNIDA cannot claim ignorance of this on the mere ground
that it was not a party to the development agreements/MoU. This was the
situation in relation to two projects – Earth Sapphire Court as well as Earth
TechOne. Insofar as Earth Towne is concerned, as already stated, GNIDA
itself required the consortium of the three companies to incorporate a SPC
and it was pursuant to this requirement, that ETIPL was brought into
existence. Further, the lease deed executed by GNIDA in favour of ETIPL
made it clear that EIL was to be the lead member of ETIPL, retaining its
majority shareholding as well as its lead role. It is an admitted fact that
EIL, which had a 78% shareholding in ETIPL, increased it to 98%. ETIPL
executed an agreement conferring the right to develop the project on the
leased land in favour of EIL. GNIDA cannot, therefore, look askance at the
role played by EIL in the development of Earth Towne. More so, in the light
of its own letter to the police authorities acknowledging EIL’s role in the
development of Earth Towne, which we have already referred to. In effect,
GNIDA cannot claim ignorance of the constructions by EIL in relation to
all three projects. 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
45
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 sufficient
amount of time, without burdening the homebuyers.
58. In EIL’s CoC, HDFC Bank and the home/office space buyers were
the only financial creditors. HDFC Bank, which claimed to be a secured
financial creditor, dissented with Alpha’s resolution plan. Its objection to
the acceptance of the resolution plan was rejected by the NCLT and that
order became final. Therefore, the Monitoring Committee comprised only
the buyers. The Monitoring Committee was impleaded as a party
respondent by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 629 of 2022 filed
before the NCLAT. Sanjay Bhalla, the authorized representative of the
Monitoring Committee, is supporting Alpha’s resolution plan and filed Civil
Appeal No. 1743 of 2023 assailing the judgment dated 30.01.2023 in
46
relation to Earth Sapphire Court and Earth TechOne. He supports Alpha,
whose resolution plan was approved by the order dated 08.06.2021 and
seeks restoration thereof. Notably, the Minutes of the Monitoring
Committee’s meeting held on 10.08.2025 evidence that Alpha undertook
that it would absorb the dues payable to GNIDA and the same would not
be burdened upon the allottees/buyers.
Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association represents about
59.
1600 homebuyers of Earth Towne, of whom 1222 homebuyers are its
registered members. The total number of homebuyers in the project are
stated to be around 1,878. The majority of the homebuyers are, therefore,
represented by this association, which supports Roma’s resolution plan.
We may also note that Roma, being the successful resolution applicant,
expressed its willingness to settle the dues of GNIDA given sufficient time.
Roma does not propose to charge GNIDA’s dues from the homebuyers of
Earth Towne and is willing to bear the entire burden by itself.
Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association filed Civil Appeal No.
60.
2466 of 2023, aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.01.2023 insofar as it
pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. This association
participated in the proceedings before the NCLAT and contributed
substantially, by bringing out relevant facts reflecting upon the
somnolence and delay on the part of GNIDA in taking appropriate steps
against EIL, despite its failures on all counts.
47
61. Civil Appeal No. 2491 of 2023 was filed by Roma assailing the
judgment dated 30.01.2023 insofar as it related to Company Appeal (AT)
(Ins) No. 630 of 2022,. Roma seeks restoration of the order dated
05.04.2021 approving its resolution plan.
UTOPIA is the association of allottees of the Earth TechOne, while
62.
Sapphire Patrons Independent Common Association (SPICA) is the
associtation 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 relevant significance is the fact that the Ministry of Housing and
Urban Affairs, Government of India, constituted a committee under the
48
chairmanship of Mr. Amitabh Kant, former Chief Executive Officer of the
Policy Commission, vide order dated 31.03.2023, in relation to stalled real
estate projects. This Committee was to recommend measures to protect
the interests of homebuyers and to complete such stalled projects in a
timely manner. The Committee submitted its report on 24.07.2023. The
Committee noted that real estate was an important sector and more than
200 industries were linked to it, creating a large number of jobs. It was
also noted that as per the estimate of the Indian Banks Association, about
4.12 lakh houses across the country were not completed due to financial
constraints of the developers. Of these, around 2.4 lakh houses were
stated to be in the National Capital Region under Authorities, such as
NOIDA, GNIDA and YEIDA. Upon the recommendations made by the
Committee, the Government of Uttar Pradesh was stated to have
formulated a policy/package so as to protect the interests of all parties
while promoting development. It was recorded that the main objective of
the policy/package was to provide houses/flats with registry to the
homebuyers as early as possible. Group housing projects were covered
thereby but not projects that were commercial, industrial, etc.
65. The scheme of the policy/package envisages co-developers being
given permission to complete the projects after recognizing them in the
records of the Authority concerned and, thereupon, the responsibility for
paying the dues of the said Authority and completing the project would be
49
jointly shared by the co-developer and the allottee. All outstanding
amounts were to be re-verified by an independent chartered accountant/
third party and recalculated as per the conditions of the lease deed and
the orders issued by the Authority from time to time. Time extension to
complete the project was to be given, free of cost, subject to a maximum
period of three years. Net outstanding amounts of upto ₹100 crore were
to be paid in a maximum of one year while net dues of upto ₹500 crore
could be cleared over two years. If the outstanding amount exceeded
₹500 crore, it could be paid within three years. In the event the developer
failed to complete the project within the stipulated three years, 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.
Though, the aforestated policy/package would have application only
66.
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
50
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.
As rightly pointed out by the NCLAT, the inertia on the part of GNIDA
67.
and its failure to protect the interests of the home/office space buyers,
apart from its own interests, clearly disentitles it from levying penal
interest/penal charges/time-extension penalties at this stage. However,
notwithstanding the lapses on its part, GNIDA would still be entitled to
recover the principal amounts due to it, after deducting the penal interest,
penal charges and time-extension penalties. The dues in that regard shall
be recalculated by GNIDA, as indicated hereinabove, and communicated
to Alpha and Roma within two weeks from the date of this judgment. Once
such amounts are quantified, the resolution applicants shall make
necessary arrangements for payment of those dues. We would expect
Alpha and Roma, the successful resolution applicants, to stand by their
commitment that such dues would not be burdened upon the home/office
space buyers who have already suffered sufficiently by the delay in the
execution of the projects. The said dues shall be cleared by Alpha and
Roma on their own. The payments in that regard, in equated monthly
instalments, shall be made over twenty four months. The first such
51
th
payment shall be made on or before the 7 day of July, 2026. Registration
of the homes/office spaces in favour of the allottees shall be undertaken
only after payment of the dues of GNIDA in totality and with its active
participation, so as to confer the status of sub-lessees upon the buyers.
Given the fact that GNIDA is responsible for this litigation to a great
68.
extent, owing to its failure in monitoring the development of the projects
and in taking timely measures to realise its dues from EIL, it would not be
entitled to any interest on the principal amounts due for the extended
period of twenty four months, during which the successful resolution
applicants, Alpha and Roma, are required to clear its dues. The resolution
plans of Alpha and Roma shall stand restored. The successful resolution
applicants shall endeavour to complete the projects within the time frames
indicated by them in their resolution plans. Those time frames shall
st
commence from the 1 day of June, 2026.
On the above analysis, Civil Appeal Nos. 1526 of 2023, 1743 of 2023,
69.
2491 of 2023, 2466 of 2023, 3438 of 2023 and 4619 of 2023 are allowed.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2406-07 of 2023 are disposed of in the above terms.
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
52
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 filed by the consortium of
One City Infrastructure Private Limited and APM Infrastructure Private
Limited, seeking to intervene on the ground that their resolution plan,
which was pending approval before the adjudicating authority, has been
kept on hold owing to the pendency of these appeals. This application is
equally misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
72. IA No. 137215 of 2023 was filed by one Ms. Manish Rawat,
Resolution Professional of Earth Gracia Buildcon Private Limited, seeking
to intervene in these appeals on the ground that she is the Resolution
Professional of a group company of EIL, which is also facing CIRP
53
proceedings, and has a direct interest in the outcome of these cases, as
the decision in these appeals would decide the fate of numerous allottees
in the project, which was the subject matter of the CIRP against that group
company. However, we are not inclined to accept her intervention in these
appeals and the application is dismissed.
IAs for intervention and relief filed by Sanjeev Kumar Singh and
73.
Beena Singh, claiming to be affected homebuyers of Earth Towne, are not
considered as they were not parties before the NCLAT. In any event, their
interests are adequately protected by their association. The applications
are, accordingly, dismissed. IA Nos. 217541-217542 are also rejected, as
the interest of the intervenor is sufficiently represented.
74. IA Nos. 166202 of 2023 and 50758 of 2025, filed by Jambey Tashi
(deceased, represented by LRs) and others, seeking to intervene and also
praying for a direction to NBCC (India) Limited or any other competent
public sector undertaking to submit its detailed proposal for completion of
the projects of EIL and to take over and complete such projects, so as to
hand over the units to the buyers is also rejected.
75. IA No. 77861 of 2023, filed by Earth Buyers Association for Justice,
seeking to come on record, is misconceived as its appeal against the
order dated 08.06.2021 was dismissed and attained finality. Significantly,
it did not disclose this fact in its application for impleadment. Its
applications for directions are also rejected.
54
76. Apart from the aforestated applications, we may note that several
intervention applications were filed by home/office space buyers seeking
to be heard. However, as their interests are sufficiently represented by the
associations which had participated in the proceedings before the NCLAT,
we are not inclined to entertain such individual intervention applications.
Similarly, applications have been filed by persons claiming to be
77.
home/office space buyers, who had failed to submit their claims before
the IRP/RP within time and now seek to be impleaded in these appeals to
air their grievances in that regard. As they failed to take necessary steps
at the relevant time by filing applications before the NCLT, if their claims
were not admitted or entertained by the IRP/RP and as such issues are
outside the scope of these appeals, we are not inclined to entertain the
same. Intervention applications filed by such intervenors and their
applications for directions are, accordingly, rejected.
All other applications shall also stand closed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
……………………...J
[SANJAY KUMAR]
.……………………...J
[ALOK ARADHE]
New Delhi;
May 05, 2026.
55