NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY versus MANISH AGARWAL & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 05-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 489 : 2024 INSC 839
Noida Special Economic Zone Authority 
v. 
Manish Agarwal & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 5918-5919 of 2022)
05 November 2024
[Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant-NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority filed a claim 
of INR 06.29 Crores which was admitted by the Respondent No.01-
Resolution Professional. The NCLT vide order dated 05.10.2020, 
granted only INR 50 Lakhs to the appellant against its admitted claim 
of INR 06.29 Crores. In the instant appeals, the challenge is to the 
judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by NCLAT which were preferred 
by the appellant being the operational creditor impugning the order 
dated 05.10.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the Resolution 
Plan as presented on the approval by the Committee of Creditors.
Headnotes†
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.31(1) and 60(5) – 
Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 – Respondent No.02-
Corporate Debtor was sub-leased a Plot at NOIDA Special 
Economic Zone by the Appellant-NOIDA Special Economic 
Zone Authority – Appellant’s case that the Corporate Debtor 
had begun defaulting on lease payments and there was no 
performance or activity on the said land – In light of the 
defaults committed by corporate debtor, CIRP was initiated 
by the appellant before the NCLT – Appellant filed a claim of  
INR 6,29,18,121/- which was admitted by the Respondent 
No.01 – Resolution Professional (RP) – A Resolution plan 
prepared by the Respondent No. 03-Resolution applicant was 
put before the Committee of Creditors – An application was 
then filed u/ss.31(1) and 60(5) of the IBC before the NCLT by 
the RP, seeking an approval of the Resolution Plan on behalf of 
the Committee of Creditors – The same was allowed by NCLT 
vide order dated 05.10.2020, granting only INR 50 Lakhs to 
the appellant against its admitted claim of INR 06.29 Crores – 
Objections against the said order by appellant were dismissed 
by the NCLT by order dated 27.11.2020 – Appeals before 
* Author
490
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
NCLAT were also dismissed vide the impugned Judgment 
dated 14.02.2022 – Correctness:
Held: It is settled that the question of valuation is basically a question 
of facts, which does not call for any interference if it is based 
on relevant material on record – The average of the two closest 
estimates given by the valuers were taken into consideration as fair 
value and liquidation value respectively, which were found to be just 
and reasonable – This would be, keeping in view Section 35C of  
IBC 2016, where the powers and duties of the liquidator have been 
laid down – Since due process appears to have been followed 
no fault is found requiring interference –  Sections 30 and 31 of  
IBC 2016, which deal with the submission of the Resolution Plan 
has rightly been evaluated and analysed NCLAT as per the ratio laid 
down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions – Conclusion 
as culled out and elucidated is correct that all the dues, including 
statutory dues owned by the Central Government, State Government 
and local authority, which is not the part of the Resolution Plan shall 
stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues 
for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority 
had approved the Resolution Plan could be pressed into service or 
continues – These observations took care of the assertions of the 
appellant with regard to the statutory dues and the claims as have 
been made and put forth relatable to the areas of lease – Beside 
this, as regards the other claims pertaining to the transfer fees, 
etc. were not to be interfered with by courts or tribunals as the 
same stood related to the commercial wisdom of the Committee 
of Creditors for they being the best persons to determine their 
interests, and any such interference is non-justiciable except as 
provided by Section 30(2) of IBC 2016 – There is no such violation 
of the statute or the procedure – It has come on record and stands 
admitted that the Resolution Plan had already been implemented 
and the dues as found payable under the Resolution Plan have 
been disbursed to the concerned parties and also the appellant – In 
light of the records and various decisions of the Supreme Court, 
the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted – Thus, the orders  
dated 05.10.2020 and 27.11.2020, as passed by the NCLT and 
approved by the NCLAT vide its impugned Judgment dat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.