National Company Law Appellate TribunalInsolvency and Bankruptcy LawAdministrative and Public Law

NCLT cannot entertain challenges to statutory orders passed by authorities under State Urban Planning legislation.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Rastogi & Ors & Ors.v.Lucknow Development Authority (Lda) Through Its Vice-Chairman & Ors. & Ors.

NCLT cannot entertain challenges to statutory orders passed by authorities under State Urban Planning legislation.. Mr. Sunil Kumar Rastogi & Ors & Ors. vs Lucknow Development Authority (Lda) Through Its Vice-Chairman & Ors. & Ors.. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority’s decision and dismissed the appeal

It also directed

It 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

The Appellants were granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies under the 1973 Act against the LDA's order

01Facts

The Appellants are allottees of a real estate project undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which commenced on 30/09/2019

¶ 3-4

A Resolution Plan was approved on 13/12/2021, which authorized the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to obtain necessary approvals, including map sanctions

¶ 3-4, 17

On 03/05/2025, the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) sanctioned the project map under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973

¶ 4

Aggrieved, 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

¶ 5-6

The 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

¶ 7

The NCLT dismissed the application as "not maintainable" via an order dated 21/01/2026, leading to this appeal

¶ 2, 8

02Issues

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, 19

ii.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, 22-25

03Law 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

¶ 20-21

The 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

¶ 23-25

04Reasoning

The Appellants contended that the NCLT had jurisdiction because the sanctioned map allegedly violated the approved Resolution Plan and RERA requirements

¶ 10

However, 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

¶ 18-19

Distinguishing 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

¶ 24-25

Consequently, 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

¶ 20-21

05Holding

The NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority’s decision and dismissed the appeal

¶ 26, 28

It 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

¶ 25-26

The Appellants were granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies under the 1973 Act against the LDA's order

¶ 27
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Original Court PDF

Mr. Sunil Kumar Rastogi & Ors & Ors.vsLucknow Development Authority (Lda) Through Its Vice-Chairman & Ors. & Ors.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · April 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment