Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

901-wp-2065-2025-F.doc

24. Per contra, Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the judgment in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Through The Authorised Signatory (supra), does not help the petitioner as powers of SRA under Slum Act, 1971 cannot be curtailed by mere NCLT and/or because of approval of resolution plan. He submitted that SRA was not even party before NCLT. He submitted that Section 238 of the IBC will not affect the provisions and powers of the Slum Act as both acts are different in their objective and implementation and nature. Even bar under Section 231 will not applicable to SRA. He submitted that the petitioner is under obligation to pay rent to slum dwellers which is a contractual obligation and based on such terms the petitioner was granted permission for development and for completion of rehabilitation scheme. The indemnity and affidavits submitted by the petitioner are towards future liability out of default on the part of the petitioner.

901-wp-2065-2025-F.doc

56. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra (Supra) to argue that the slum dwellers can no longer raise any claim for unpaid transit rent, which is a pre-CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) liability. According to the petitioner, since the resolution plan has been approved by the NCLT and is binding on all stakeholders, any such demand stands extinguished. Further, the petitioner submits that the approval of the resolution plan "cures" all past defaults, and therefore, the very basis for invoking Section 13(2) of the Slum Act - i.e., default by the developer - no longer survives. This contention, in my considered view, is legally flawed and based on an incorrect understanding of the law. It conflates two distinct legal consequences: (i) the extinguishment of monetary claims or dues, and (ii) the factual occurrence and consequences of a default. The judgment in Ghanshyam Mishra does not say that past events, such as defaults or breaches, are erased from legal history. What it says is that any monetary claims arising from such defaults, if not dealt with in the resolution plan, cannot be enforced later. Thus, slum dwellers may be barred from initiating proceedings to recover unpaid transit rent -- that remedy may be extinguished. However, the fact that such default occurred remains relevant, especially when the SRA is considering whether the developer has lost the confidence of the beneficiaries and whether the scheme has suffered due to such default. Section 13(2) of the Slum Act empowers the SRA to act on those facts, not for recovery of money, but for regulatory correction -- i.e., to change the developer in public interest.

59. Thirdly, even if we assume that the resolution applicant who took over the corporate debtor intended to continue the slum project, such intention cannot override the SRA's discretion under law. The SRA is not a stakeholder in the resolution plan approval process in the same way as financial creditors. It does not vote on the plan. Its consent is not a prerequisite for the NCLT to approve a resolution plan. Therefore, any resolution plan which seeks to continue with a public project such as slum redevelopment must independently obtain the SRA's approval based on performance assurances. This is where coordination between the two statutory regimes -- the IBC and the Slum Act -- becomes essential. A prudent resolution applicant could approach the SRA and the concerned slum society with a concrete proposal to revive the scheme. Such a proposal could include firm timelines for construction, immediate payment of rent arrears (or an agreed 901-wp-2065-2025-F.doc mechanism for the same), and other safeguards. Based on this, the SRA -- in consultation with the slum dwellers -- could then decide whether the developer deserves a second chance or whether it is in public interest to hand over the scheme to another developer already approved by the slum dwellers. This discretion clearly lies with the SRA under the Slum Act. The approval of a resolution plan under the IBC does not take away the SRA's powers under Section 13(2). At best, it changes the factual circumstances

92. Therefore, it is clear that both sets of stakeholders -- financial creditors and slum dwellers -- have suffered significant losses: the former in the form of compromised recoveries, and the latter in the form of delayed possession of homes and unpaid transit rent. Allowing the revived petitioner to retain the project land, now a valuable and regularised asset under the Slum Act, 901-wp-2065-2025-F.doc without corresponding obligations, would amount to handing over a sanitized asset free from responsibility. That would not only be inequitable, but legally impermissible in the context of a public welfare scheme. In this backdrop, the intervention of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) under its statutory powers must be seen as an effort to restore fairness and uphold public interest. The imposition of conditionalities, such as repayment of arrears and priority allocation of tenements, is not punitive -- it is a necessary balancing measure. The SRA has acted within its mandate to ensure that the project proceeds, and that displaced slum dwellers are not further prejudiced.