01Facts
The Appellants are allottees of a real estate project undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which commenced on 30/09/2019
¶ 3-4A Resolution Plan was approved on 13/12/2021, which authorized the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to obtain necessary approvals, including map sanctions
¶ 3-4, 17On 03/05/2025, the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) sanctioned the project map under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
¶ 4Aggrieved, the Appellants moved the Allahabad High Court, which directed the LDA to hear their grievances; the LDA subsequently passed an order on 03/02/2026
¶ 5-6The Appellants then filed I.A. 189/2026 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), seeking the cancellation of the sanctioned map and directions for the SRA to seek fresh consent from allottees
¶ 7The NCLT dismissed the application as "not maintainable" via an order dated 21/01/2026, leading to this appeal
¶ 2, 802Issues
i.1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has the jurisdiction to set aside or interfere with a map sanctioned by a statutory authority acting under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
¶ 15-16, 19ii.2. Whether the dispute regarding the map sanction arises "solely" out of the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor so as to fall within the NCLT’s jurisdiction as per the ratio in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs Amit Gupta
¶ 11, 22-2503Law Applied
statutory orders passed under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, must be challenged through the remedies provided within that specific Act, such as revisionary powers of the State Government
¶ 20-21The court also applied the principle from Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs Amit Gupta (2021), which restricts NCLT jurisdiction to disputes that arise "solely out of and relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor," rather than independent statutory actions taken by third-party authorities
¶ 23-2504Reasoning
The Appellants contended that the NCLT had jurisdiction because the sanctioned map allegedly violated the approved Resolution Plan and RERA requirements
¶ 10However, the Tribunal observed that the LDA’s sanction on 03/05/2025 was an exercise of "Statutory jurisdiction" under state planning laws, occurring more than four years after the Resolution Plan's approval
¶ 18-19Distinguishing the present case from Gujarat Urja, the Tribunal noted that while a contract termination based only on an insolvency trigger relates to CIRP, a map sanction by a state authority under urban planning laws is an independent administrative act
¶ 24-25Consequently, the NCLT cannot sit in judgment over the statutory decisions of the LDA, as such orders can only be challenged via the appellate or revisionary mechanisms established under the 1973 Act
¶ 20-2105Holding
The NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority’s decision and dismissed the appeal
¶ 26, 28It held that the NCLT did not commit an error in rejecting the application as "not maintainable" because it lacked the authority to cancel a map sanctioned under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
¶ 25-26The Appellants were granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies under the 1973 Act against the LDA's order
¶ 27Original Court PDF
Mr. Sunil Kumar Rastogi & Ors & Ors.vsLucknow Development Authority (Lda) Through Its Vice-Chairman & Ors. & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
