Supreme Court upholds NCLAT Order Approving Reduced Claim for Noida SEZ in Corporate Resolution Plan [Read Judgement]

The NCLAT had reduced the amount, citing penalties associated with the sub-lease renewal and transfer charges as factors in the adjusted claim.
NCLAT - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - Supreme Court - Resolution Plan - Noida SEZ - NCLAT Order - NCLAT Order Approving - Reduced Claim - taxscan

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition by the Noida Special Economic Zone (NSEZ) contesting the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) approval of a resolution plan that awarded Rs. 50 lakh to NSEZ, a significant reduction from its original claim of around Rs. 6 crore in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan (NCLAT).

A bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) holds precedence over the SEZ Act, as clarified under Section 238 of the IBC, thereby dismissing NSEZ’s argument for exemptions from payments.

Justice Masih stated, “The provisions of IBC 2016 prevail over other laws, including the SEZ Act 2005, rendering NSEZ’s claims for exemptions on fees or penalties for sub-lease renewal or transfer charges inapplicable.”

Get a Copy of The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us, Click here

The appellant had further argued that the valuation of the corporate debtor was flawed, claiming non-compliance with Regulation 35(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board regulations due to the lack of a physical inspection. However, the Court, referencing the Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. case, ruled that valuation is a factual matter supported by existing material, thus not warranting intervention.

The judgement observed, “The valuation process appears just and reasonable as per Section 35C of the IBC, with due process followed.”

Since the resolution plan has been implemented and payments disbursed to all entitled parties, including NSEZ, the Court dismissed the appeal, solidifying the plan’s approval.

Get a Copy of The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us, Click here

Mr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Anshul Rawat, Adv.; Mr. Saurabh George, Adv.; Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR appeared for the appellants and Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv.; Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR; Mr. Karan Kohli, Adv.; Mr. Krishna Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Adv.; Mr. Karan Batura, AOR; Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Adv. appeared for the respondents.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader