ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5918-5919/2022 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS MANISH AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 117545/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY) Date : 05-11-2024 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Karan Kohli, Adv. Mr. Krishna Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Adv. Mr. Karan Batura, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih pronounced the Reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S.Oka and His Lordship. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed Reportable judgment. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Anita Malhotra) (AVGV RAMU ) AR-CUM-PS Court Master (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.)
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 1 of 17 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO S . 5918 - 5919 OF 202 2 N oida Special Economic Zone Authority … A ppellant Vs. M anish Agarwal & Ors. … R espondents J U D G M E N T AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. 1. In the present Appeals challenge is to the J udgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ NCLAT ” ) which were preferred by the Appellant , i.e., NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority, being the Operational Creditor
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 2 of 17 (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) impugning the O rder dated 05 . 10 .202 0 passed b y the Adjudicating Authority of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench ( hereinafter referred to as “ NCLT ” ) approving the Resolution Plan as presented on the approval by the Committee of Creditors , and also the O rder dated 27.11.2020 vide which an application preferred by the Appellant , challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan , stood rejected. 2. Briefly , the facts are that the Respondent No.02 , i.e., Shree Bhoomika International Limited , being the C orporate D ebtor (hereinafter referred to as “Corporate Debtor”) was sub - leased the P lot bearing No. 59 - I ad measuring 16,100 square meters at NOIDA Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as “NSEZ”) by the Appellant , in capacity of lessee of the said land
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 3 of 17 from the NOIDA Authority, vide Lease Deed dated 26.10.1995 , and it was valid for a period of 15 years, i.e., up to 31.05.2010. It is the case of the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor had begun defaulting on lease payments in 1999, and moreover, there was no performance or activity on the said land since the year 2003 - 2004 leading to financial losses to the Government Exchequer , and same also being violative of the Special Economic Zone Rules and guidelines framed therein. Appellant has also made a refe rence to a Public Notice dated 06.02.2018 by the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund for sale of immovable and movable assets of the Corporate Debtor through an e - auction , fixing the total reserved price at INR 0 9.18 Crores. 3. In the light of the defaults committed by the Corporate Debtor , Corporate Insolvency
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 4 of 17 Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) was initiated by the Appellant before the NCLT . While admitting the said application on 11.07.2019 , an Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as “ I RP”) was appointed. The Committee of Creditors , which comprised of the S o le F inancial C reditor, being the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund – IDBI Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “sole Financial Creditor”) was constituted by the IRP after making a public announcement on 17.07.2019 as per the prescribed procedure. 4. In pursuance thereto , the Appellant filed a claim of INR 6,29,18,121/ - (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and One Hundred Twenty One only) which was admitted by the Respondent No.01 – R esolution P rofessional (hereinafter referred to as “RP”) in
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 5 of 17 entirety . Valuation of the Corporate Debtor was thereby conducted by two different valuers, and an average thereof was carried out , leading to the fixing of the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor at INR 0 4.25 Crores. The Appellant had put forth that the valuers had also observed that the valuations derived by them could be realised, subject to fulfilment of the rules of NSEZ and procedure of approval thereof. 5. The Resolution Plan dated 24.11.2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution Plan”), which was prepared by the Respondent No. 03 – M/s Commodities Trading, being the Resolution Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution Applicant”) was put before the Committee of Creditors , w hich approved it in its 4 th Meeting dated 06.01.20 2 0 .
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 6 of 17 6. An a pplication was then filed under Section s 31(1) and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “ IBC 2016 ” ) 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 5 0 Lakhs to the Appellant against its admitted claim of INR 0 6.29 Crores. Aggrieved, t he Appellant put for th its objection s before the RP to the Resolution Plan and claimed payment of the entire amount of INR 0 6.29 Crores from the C orporate D ebtor , leaving open the legal remedy to recover the full dues , in case the same was not accepted. 7. Being at loggerhead with the RP with respect to the payment of admitted claim, the Appellant moved an application before the NCLT
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 7 of 17 challenging the O rder date d 05.10.2020, which approved the Resolution Plan . This was dismissed vide Order dated 27.11.2020 , observing that the said t ribunal did not have the jurisdiction to accept the prayer made in the application , which would amount to setting aside of the Resolution Plan , and the Appellant had the remedy of filing an appeal before the NCLAT. 8. Thereafter, the Appellant moved appeal s under Section 61 of IBC 2016 before the NCLAT , challenging both the orders , as referred to above . The se appeal s were also dismissed vide the impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022. 9. The grievance put forth by the A ppellant is with regard to the Appellant not being informed about the auction proceedings which were initiated at behest of the RP , thus , depriving it of its
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 8 of 17 participation in the said proceedings. Once the total claim ha d been admitted by the RP , which was clearly indicated in the Resolution Plan , the said amount should have been disbursed to the Appellant prior to the claim of the other claimants , including the sole Financial Creditor. 10. Another aspect which has been pressed into service is with regard to C lause 10.9 of the Resolution Plan , as regards the exemptions from the NS EZ , asserted to be in direct contravention and contra d iction to the ir established rules and principles of the function ing of the NSEZ. The A ppellant , which works under the guidance of the Ministry of Commerce and I ndustry , Government of India, could not have been commanded relating to its functions by the R P, especially with regard to the charges or penalties relatable to the change in any business model for
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 9 of 17 transfer of units by the original allottee. The attempt to by - pass the payment of statutory fee would be an unjust enrichment to the Resolution A pplicant, thus , contradicting Section 34(2)(d) of the S pecial E conomic Z one Act, 20 05 (hereinafter referred to as “SEZ Act, 2005”) . 11. The Appellant even challenged the fa ir and liquidation valuation of the Corporate D ebtor being conducted by the two valuers . It was so challenged on the ground that no physical inspection of the property in question was carried out by the said v aluers. A reference in this regard was made to Regulation 35(1)(a) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBBI Regulations 2016”) , which required physical verification of the Corporate D ebtor.
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 10 of 17 12. At the cost of reiteration, the Appellant invariably pressed over and over again assignment of only INR 50 Lakhs as against the admitted claim of INR 6,29,18,121/ - (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and One Hundred Twenty One only) . 13. The learned S enior A dvocate appearing for the Appellant has vehemently put forth the submissions as recorded above and has also referred to the statutory provisions before this Court . On considering the same, going through the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the NCLAT and the records , we are not persuaded to take a different view. 14. As regard the fair value and liquidation value of Corporate Debtor, as derived by the valuers is concerned, this Court in Dun c an s Industries
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 11 of 17 Ltd . v . State of U.P. and O ther s 1 held 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. As stated above, t he 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. 15. 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 1 (2000) 1 SCC 633
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 12 of 17 ratio laid down by this Court in Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh and O the rs 2 , Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons P rivate L imited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Others 3 , and K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Others 4 , reference thereof has been made by the NCLAT in extenso . Conclusion as c u lled 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 2 (2020) 11 SCC 467 3 (2021) 9 SCC 657 4 (2019) 12 SCC 150
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 13 of 17 could be pressed into service or continues. Th ese observations took care of the assertions of the A ppellant with regard to the statutory dues and the claims as ha ve been made and put forth relatable to the areas of lease. 16. 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 exc ep t as provided by Section 30(2) of IBC 2016. We do not find violation of the statute or the procedure as also the norms fixed as per the decisions referred to above of this Court, the Res olution Plan a s approved by the C ommittee of Creditors, and the
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 14 of 17 same having been accepted deserves and has rightly been left untouched. Fundamentally, t he financial decisions as have been taken by Committee of Creditors, e specially with re gard to viability or otherwise, while evaluating the plan would thus prevail. 17. As far as the submission of the L earned Senior Counsel that exemptions from N SEZ payments , includ ing any type of fees or penalty for renewal of sub - lease and / or for transfer charges due with regard to the change of directorship or shareholding in favour of the Resolution A pplicant has to be dealt with as per Clause 10.9 of the Resolution Plan cannot be accepted in the light of Section 238 of IBC 2016, which provides for the provision s of IBC 2016 to have an overriding effect over the other laws . If that be so,
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 15 of 17 the obvious effect is that the same would prevail , leading to t he provisions as contained in the SEZ Act 2005 giving way to IBC 2016 . 18. It has c o me on record and st ands admitted that the Resolution Plan ha d already been implemented and the dues as found payable under the Resolution Plan have been disbursed to the concerned parties . As regards the Appellant is concerned, the amount was disbursed vide D emand D raft dated 22.10.2020 which has been received and accepted by the Appellant . L eading to the dismissal of the appeal vide impugned J udgment dated 14.02.2022 . 19. In the light of above and having perused the record while bearing in mind the extensive observations made by 3 - Judge Bench of this Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 16 of 17 India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others 5 , and its reiteration by numerous subsequent decisions of this Court such as the Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another 6 and in the latest decision in DBS Bank Limited Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and An other 7 , we find ourselves not in a position to accept the claim of the Appellant as sought to be made and put forth in these appeals . 20. The Orders dated 05.10.2020 and 27.11.2020, as ha ve been passed by the NCLT and approved by the NCLAT vide its impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022 , do not call for any interference in the 5 (2020) 8 SCC 531 6 (202 2 ) 2 SCC 401 7 (2024) 3 SCC 752
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 17 of 17 present Appeals. Th e a ppeals being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Pending application ( s ) , if any, also stand disposed of. .... …………………………… …. J. ( ABHAY S. OKA ) .. ………… ………………………… J. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) N ew Delhi ; N ovember 05 , 2024 .
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 1 of 17 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO S . 5918 - 5919 OF 202 2 N oida Special Economic Zone Authority … A ppellant Vs. M anish Agarwal & Ors. … R espondents J U D G M E N T AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. 1. In the present Appeals challenge is to the J udgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ NCLAT ” ) which were preferred by the Appellant , i.e., NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority, being the Operational Creditor
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 2 of 17 (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) impugning the O rder dated 05 . 10 .202 0 passed b y the Adjudicating Authority of National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench ( hereinafter referred to as “ NCLT ” ) approving the Resolution Plan as presented on the approval by the Committee of Creditors , and also the O rder dated 27.11.2020 vide which an application preferred by the Appellant , challenging the approval of the Resolution Plan , stood rejected. 2. Briefly , the facts are that the Respondent No.02 , i.e., Shree Bhoomika International Limited , being the C orporate D ebtor (hereinafter referred to as “Corporate Debtor”) was sub - leased the P lot bearing No. 59 - I ad measuring 16,100 square meters at NOIDA Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as “NSEZ”) by the Appellant , in capacity of lessee of the said land
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 3 of 17 from the NOIDA Authority, vide Lease Deed dated 26.10.1995 , and it was valid for a period of 15 years, i.e., up to 31.05.2010. It is the case of the Appellant that the Corporate Debtor had begun defaulting on lease payments in 1999, and moreover, there was no performance or activity on the said land since the year 2003 - 2004 leading to financial losses to the Government Exchequer , and same also being violative of the Special Economic Zone Rules and guidelines framed therein. Appellant has also made a refe rence to a Public Notice dated 06.02.2018 by the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund for sale of immovable and movable assets of the Corporate Debtor through an e - auction , fixing the total reserved price at INR 0 9.18 Crores. 3. In the light of the defaults committed by the Corporate Debtor , Corporate Insolvency
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 4 of 17 Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) was initiated by the Appellant before the NCLT . While admitting the said application on 11.07.2019 , an Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as “ I RP”) was appointed. The Committee of Creditors , which comprised of the S o le F inancial C reditor, being the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund – IDBI Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “sole Financial Creditor”) was constituted by the IRP after making a public announcement on 17.07.2019 as per the prescribed procedure. 4. In pursuance thereto , the Appellant filed a claim of INR 6,29,18,121/ - (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and One Hundred Twenty One only) which was admitted by the Respondent No.01 – R esolution P rofessional (hereinafter referred to as “RP”) in
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 5 of 17 entirety . Valuation of the Corporate Debtor was thereby conducted by two different valuers, and an average thereof was carried out , leading to the fixing of the liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor at INR 0 4.25 Crores. The Appellant had put forth that the valuers had also observed that the valuations derived by them could be realised, subject to fulfilment of the rules of NSEZ and procedure of approval thereof. 5. The Resolution Plan dated 24.11.2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution Plan”), which was prepared by the Respondent No. 03 – M/s Commodities Trading, being the Resolution Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “Resolution Applicant”) was put before the Committee of Creditors , w hich approved it in its 4 th Meeting dated 06.01.20 2 0 .
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 6 of 17 6. An a pplication was then filed under Section s 31(1) and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “ IBC 2016 ” ) 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 5 0 Lakhs to the Appellant against its admitted claim of INR 0 6.29 Crores. Aggrieved, t he Appellant put for th its objection s before the RP to the Resolution Plan and claimed payment of the entire amount of INR 0 6.29 Crores from the C orporate D ebtor , leaving open the legal remedy to recover the full dues , in case the same was not accepted. 7. Being at loggerhead with the RP with respect to the payment of admitted claim, the Appellant moved an application before the NCLT
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 7 of 17 challenging the O rder date d 05.10.2020, which approved the Resolution Plan . This was dismissed vide Order dated 27.11.2020 , observing that the said t ribunal did not have the jurisdiction to accept the prayer made in the application , which would amount to setting aside of the Resolution Plan , and the Appellant had the remedy of filing an appeal before the NCLAT. 8. Thereafter, the Appellant moved appeal s under Section 61 of IBC 2016 before the NCLAT , challenging both the orders , as referred to above . The se appeal s were also dismissed vide the impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022. 9. The grievance put forth by the A ppellant is with regard to the Appellant not being informed about the auction proceedings which were initiated at behest of the RP , thus , depriving it of its
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 8 of 17 participation in the said proceedings. Once the total claim ha d been admitted by the RP , which was clearly indicated in the Resolution Plan , the said amount should have been disbursed to the Appellant prior to the claim of the other claimants , including the sole Financial Creditor. 10. Another aspect which has been pressed into service is with regard to C lause 10.9 of the Resolution Plan , as regards the exemptions from the NS EZ , asserted to be in direct contravention and contra d iction to the ir established rules and principles of the function ing of the NSEZ. The A ppellant , which works under the guidance of the Ministry of Commerce and I ndustry , Government of India, could not have been commanded relating to its functions by the R P, especially with regard to the charges or penalties relatable to the change in any business model for
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 9 of 17 transfer of units by the original allottee. The attempt to by - pass the payment of statutory fee would be an unjust enrichment to the Resolution A pplicant, thus , contradicting Section 34(2)(d) of the S pecial E conomic Z one Act, 20 05 (hereinafter referred to as “SEZ Act, 2005”) . 11. The Appellant even challenged the fa ir and liquidation valuation of the Corporate D ebtor being conducted by the two valuers . It was so challenged on the ground that no physical inspection of the property in question was carried out by the said v aluers. A reference in this regard was made to Regulation 35(1)(a) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBBI Regulations 2016”) , which required physical verification of the Corporate D ebtor.
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 10 of 17 12. At the cost of reiteration, the Appellant invariably pressed over and over again assignment of only INR 50 Lakhs as against the admitted claim of INR 6,29,18,121/ - (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighteen Thousand and One Hundred Twenty One only) . 13. The learned S enior A dvocate appearing for the Appellant has vehemently put forth the submissions as recorded above and has also referred to the statutory provisions before this Court . On considering the same, going through the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the NCLAT and the records , we are not persuaded to take a different view. 14. As regard the fair value and liquidation value of Corporate Debtor, as derived by the valuers is concerned, this Court in Dun c an s Industries
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 11 of 17 Ltd . v . State of U.P. and O ther s 1 held 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. As stated above, t he 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. 15. 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 1 (2000) 1 SCC 633
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 12 of 17 ratio laid down by this Court in Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh and O the rs 2 , Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons P rivate L imited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Others 3 , and K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Others 4 , reference thereof has been made by the NCLAT in extenso . Conclusion as c u lled 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 2 (2020) 11 SCC 467 3 (2021) 9 SCC 657 4 (2019) 12 SCC 150
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 13 of 17 could be pressed into service or continues. Th ese observations took care of the assertions of the A ppellant with regard to the statutory dues and the claims as ha ve been made and put forth relatable to the areas of lease. 16. 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 exc ep t as provided by Section 30(2) of IBC 2016. We do not find violation of the statute or the procedure as also the norms fixed as per the decisions referred to above of this Court, the Res olution Plan a s approved by the C ommittee of Creditors, and the
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 14 of 17 same having been accepted deserves and has rightly been left untouched. Fundamentally, t he financial decisions as have been taken by Committee of Creditors, e specially with re gard to viability or otherwise, while evaluating the plan would thus prevail. 17. As far as the submission of the L earned Senior Counsel that exemptions from N SEZ payments , includ ing any type of fees or penalty for renewal of sub - lease and / or for transfer charges due with regard to the change of directorship or shareholding in favour of the Resolution A pplicant has to be dealt with as per Clause 10.9 of the Resolution Plan cannot be accepted in the light of Section 238 of IBC 2016, which provides for the provision s of IBC 2016 to have an overriding effect over the other laws . If that be so,
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 15 of 17 the obvious effect is that the same would prevail , leading to t he provisions as contained in the SEZ Act 2005 giving way to IBC 2016 . 18. It has c o me on record and st ands admitted that the Resolution Plan ha d already been implemented and the dues as found payable under the Resolution Plan have been disbursed to the concerned parties . As regards the Appellant is concerned, the amount was disbursed vide D emand D raft dated 22.10.2020 which has been received and accepted by the Appellant . L eading to the dismissal of the appeal vide impugned J udgment dated 14.02.2022 . 19. In the light of above and having perused the record while bearing in mind the extensive observations made by 3 - Judge Bench of this Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 16 of 17 India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others 5 , and its reiteration by numerous subsequent decisions of this Court such as the Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another 6 and in the latest decision in DBS Bank Limited Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and An other 7 , we find ourselves not in a position to accept the claim of the Appellant as sought to be made and put forth in these appeals . 20. The Orders dated 05.10.2020 and 27.11.2020, as ha ve been passed by the NCLT and approved by the NCLAT vide its impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022 , do not call for any interference in the 5 (2020) 8 SCC 531 6 (202 2 ) 2 SCC 401 7 (2024) 3 SCC 752
Civil Appeal No s . 5918 - 19 of 202 2 Page 17 of 17 present Appeals. Th e a ppeals being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Pending application ( s ) , if any, also stand disposed of. .... …………………………… …. J. ( ABHAY S. OKA ) .. ………… ………………………… J. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) N ew Delhi ; N ovember 05 , 2024 .
ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5918-5919/2022 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS MANISH AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 117545/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY) Date : 23-07-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH For Appellant(s) Mr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anshul Rawat, Adv. Mr. Saurabh George, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR For Respondent(s) 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. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The submissions are heard. Judgment is reserved. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.7 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5918-5919/2022 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS MANISH AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 117545/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY) Date : 08-01-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Appellant(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anshul Rawat,Adv. Mr. S.Mahendran,Adv. Mr. Saurabh George,Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Karan Kohli, Adv. Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv. Ms. Jasleen Singh, Adv. Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Adv. Mr. Karan Batura, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 16 th April, 2024. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.45 COURT NO.14 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).5918-5919/2022 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS MANISH AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 117545/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY) Date : 24-04-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Appellant(s) Mr. Anshul Rawat, Adv. Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv. Ms. Namrata Langade, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Mr. Mohak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv. Mr. Supriyo Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Adv. Mr. Karan Batura, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file rejoinder affidavit. The matters are adjourned for three weeks. (GAGANDEEP SINGH CHADHA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5918-5919/2022 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS MANISH AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 117545/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY) Date : 14-11-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Krishnendu Dutta, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rawat, Adv. Ms. Namrata Langade, adv. Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajat, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Jain,Sr.Adv. Mr. Abhishek Anand,Adv. Mr. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Prateek Kushwaha,Adv. Mr. Mohak Sharma,Adv. Mr. karan Kohli,Adv. Mr. Pathik Choudhury,Adv. Mr. Lakshay Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. Mr. Mithu Jain, learned counsel appearing on caveat accepts notice. Counter affidavit, as prayed, be filed within six weeks. (NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5918-5919/2022 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS MANISH AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 117545/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY) Date : 16-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Appellant(s) Ms. Namrata Langade, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rawat, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Anand,Adv. Mr. Mohak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karan Kohli, Adv. Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Mithu Jain, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of letter circulated on behalf of appellant to adjourn the matters on personal ground, matters are adjourned. List after eight weeks. (NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.1723 COURT NO.14 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 10124/2022 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS MANISH AGARWAL & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.117545/2022-EX-PARTE STAY and IA No.117544/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 26-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA [IN CHAMBER] For Parties : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Mr. Nipun Gautam, Adv. Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Anshul Rawat, Adv. Ms. Namrata Langade, Adv. Mr. Aakash Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mehar Vasant, Adv. Ms. Aashna Nahar, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, is allowed. (JATINDER KAUR) (ANITA RANI AHUJA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR