Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Shri N. Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing for the Appellant, challenging the order contends that Adjudicating Authority has not passed the order dated 07.03.2023 in accordance with the observations and findings as returned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 24.03.2021 in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartment Welfare Assocaition & Ors. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. It is submitted that earlier Resolution Plan submitted by NBCC, which has extinguished the claim of the Appellant towards additional compensation and other claims had been disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment has noted that the Concession Agreement entered with Concessionaire and YEIDA was in accordance with the provisions of UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, which contract could not have Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.493 of 2023 16 been tinkered with, without the approval and consent of the YEIDA. It is submitted that the claim of the Appellant regarding additional compensation and EDC have been not dealt with in accordance with law. The Resolution Plan having earmarked only Rs.10 lakhs, each for the aforesaid claim. The learned ASG submits that the YEIDA is a Secured Creditor of the Corporate Debtor by Section 13 and 13A of the 1976 Act. The learned ASG placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit Singh (supra) to support his submissions that the Appellant has to be treated as Secured Creditor. The treatment of the claim of the Appellant, ought to have been as Secured Creditor and admittedly the Appellant had been treated as only an Operational Creditor by allocating of Rs.10 lakhs each for the claims of additional farmers' compensation and EDC. The order approving such Resolution Plan deserves to be set aside. The treatment under Suraksha Resolution Plan of the Appellant's claim alter the Concession Agreement and violates the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington. It is submitted that as per the Concession Agreement, Concessionaire was to bear entire cost of acquisition. The learned ASG has referred to Clauses 4.1(b), 4.1(d) and 4.3(c) of the Concession Agreement. It is submitted that the issue of liability of allottees to pay entire cost of acquisition is now settled by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in YEIDA vs. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society & Ors. Etc. (supra) decided on 19.05.2022. The learned ASG further submits that in the judgment of the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.493 of 2023 17 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that the claim of additional farmers' compensation to the extent of 64.7% is payable by the Concessionaire. As per judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Gajraj case, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi's case, entire payment of additional compensation as claimed by YEIDA in the CIRP, i.e., Rs.1689 crores has to be paid. Coming to the claim filed by the Appellant, toward the EDC, it is submitted that the claim was filed by Appellant towards the EDC of Rs.1197 crores, whereas the IRP has admitted the claim of EDC of Rs.409 crores. The learned ASG referring to his additional affidavit dated 04.05.2024 submits that in view of the pleadings brought by the parties on record, rectified amount of EDC as per Concession Agreement is now Rs.525.91 crores only. It is submitted that Suraksha has already undertaken to make payment of EDC for land parcel at Tappal and Agra, as when the external development work is carried out in Tappal and Agra, which payable claim shall be of Rs.572.89 crores. The learned ASG submits that the claim filed by the Appellant towards the EDC is also a secured claim, since the claim of EDC arises out of Concession Agreement between the parties and by virtue of Section 13 of the 1976 Act, this claim is also a secured claim. The learned ASG during the submissions has reiterated the submissions of the Appellant, which was also recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington's judgment that YEIDA ""does not stand to oppose the resolution plan only for the sake of opposition; rather it would like the plan to succeed but, it has a public duty to ensure that the framework under CA is preserved". The Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.493 of 2023 18 learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant in this Appeal is only concerned with regard to treatment of its claim in the Plan and the Appeal has been filed only qua the treatment of the Appellant towards its claim. Shri Venkataraman further submits that additional compensation payable to the farmers against the acquisition of land is their constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the said right, cannot be taken away by any means.