2026 INSC 449 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2023

Alpha Corp Development Private Limited … Appellant

versus

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA)

and others

… Respondents

with

C.A. No. 1743 of 2023

C.A. No. 2491 of 2023

C.A. No. 2466 of 2023

C.A. Nos. 2406 -2407 of 2023

C.A. No. 3438 of 2023

C.A. Nos. 3435 -3437 of 2023

C.A. No. 2756 of 2023

C.A. No. 2763 of 2023

C.A. No. 4619 of 2023

and

C.A.(Diary) No. 19132 of 2023

2

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. By judgment dated 30.01.2023, the National Company Law

Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

1

, disposed of three

company appeals filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

(GNIDA), viz., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 180, 629 and 630 of 2022,

and set aside the orders dated 05.04.2021, 08.06.2021 and 07.12.2021

passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench III, New Delhi

2

.

2. By the order dated 05.04.2021 passed in C.A. No. 751 of 2019 in

CP(IB)-401(ND)/2017, the NCLT had approved the resolution plan

submitted by Roma Unicon Designex Consortium (Roma). This order was

challenged by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. By

its order dated 08.06.2021 in IA No. 05 of 2020 in CP( IB)-401(ND)/2017,

the NCLT had approved the resolution plan submitted by Alpha Corp

Development Private Limited (Alpha). This order was assailed by GNIDA

in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. By the order dated

07.12.2021 in IA No. 4235 of 2021 filed by Roma in CP(IB)-401(ND)/2017 ,

the NCLT directed GNIDA to give effect to the resolution plan approved by

it by the order dated 05.04.2021. This order was challenged before the

NCLAT by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 180 of 2022.

1

For short, ‘the NCLAT’

2

For short, ‘the NCLT’

3

3. Aggrieved by the NCLAT’s judgment dated 30.01.2023, the present

appeals were filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016

3

. We may now note the details of these appeals. Civil Appeal

Nos. 1526 and 1743 of 2023 were filed by Alpha and one Sanjay Bhalla

respectively in so far as the judgment pertained to Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Roma and Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare

Association filed Civil Appeal Nos . 2491 and 2466 of 2023 respectively

against the judgment in the context of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630

of 2022. Civil Appeal Nos. 2406 -2407 of 2023 were filed by Earth

Infrastructures Limited, the corporate debtor (CD), against the judgment

in the context of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 629 and 630 of 2022.

Civil Appeal No. 3438 of 2023 was filed by Earth Copia Owners Society in

relation to Company Appeal No. (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Civil Appeal

Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 were filed by Earth United Consumer Association

assailing the judgment apropos all three appeals. Civil Appeal No. 2756

of 2023 was filed by GNIDA aggrieved by denial of certain reliefs by the

NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022. Civil Appeal No.

2763 was also filed by GNIDA on similar grounds in relation to Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. Civil Appeal No. 4619 of 2023 was filed

by Unific TechOne Patrons Independent Association (UTOPIA) against

3

For short, ‘the Code’

4

the judgment insofar as it pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629

of 2022. Lastly, Earth Property Buyers Association filed Civil Appeal

(Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 in relation to all three appeals .

4. As regards the appeals filed under Civil Appeal (Diary ) No. 19132 of

2023, we find that there is a delay of 34 days in their filing. These appeals

were filed only on 04.05.2023 against the judgment dated 30.01.2023.

Section 62(2) of the Code empowers this Court to condone delay in filing

up to 15 days but not more. These appeals are, thus, clearly barred by

time and cannot be entertained. The appeals filed under Civil Appeal

(Diary) No. 19132 of 2023 are, therefore, dismissed on this short ground.

5. By order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2023

and batch, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo.

6. The ostensible genesis of this litigation is the corporate insolvency

resolution process (CIRP) initiated by one Deepak Khanna, a financial

creditor, against Earth Infrastructures Limited (EIL), the CD, vide

Company Petition IB-401(ND)/2017, under Section 7 of the Code.

However, long prior thereto, GNIDA , an authority constituted under

Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976,

allotted 73,942 square metres of land in Large Group Housing/Builders’

Residential Plot No. GH-04, Sector 01, G reater Nodia, Uttar Pradesh, to

a consortium, comprising EIL, Raus Infras Limited and Shalini Holdings

Limited, under allotment letter dated 19.03.2010. The letter indicated that

5

the Builders Scheme [Scheme Code BRS-01/2010- (I)] would form part of

the allotment letter and would be binding on the allotees. GNIDA had

formulated this scheme for plots of over 60,000 square metres area,

inviting tenders for allotment of such plots on lease for 90 years. The terms

and conditions for allotment/lease of such plots were detailed in the

scheme. In the event the bidder was a consortium, Clause 8 thereof had

application. Clause 8 reads thus: -

‘8. In case bidders have formed a consortium: -

(a) Members of the consortium will have to specify one Lead Member

who alone shall be authorized to correspond with the Authority. The Lead

member should be the single largest shareholder having at least 26%

share in the consortium. The shareholding of the l ead member in the

consortium shall retain at least 26% till the completion certificate of at

least one phase of the project i s obtained from the Greater Noida

Authority. Each member of the consortium with equity stake of at least

10% will be considered as a "relevant member”. The Lead Member of the

consortium must necessarily be a Firm/Company registered in India with

the appropriate statutory Authority.

(b) The lead member and the relevant members should jointly fulfil the

minimum requirement of net worth, solvency, turnover and experience. In

case the tenderer/consortium member is a company, the qualifications of

the holding company(ies) of the lead member and the relevant members

or their subsidiary companies shall also be considered as the

qualifications of the applying company/consortium member.

(c) In case of a Consortium, the members shall submit a Memorandum

of Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the

scheme(s), and in case a plot is allotted to them, the MOA shall clearly

define the role and responsibility of each member in the consortium,

particularly with regard to arranging debt and equity for the project and

its implementation. MOA should be submitted in original duly

registered/notarized with the appropriate authority.

(d) The members shall submit a registered/notarized Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the scheme,

and in case a plot is allotted to them, to form Special Purpose

Company(ies), hereinafter called SPCs, that will subsequently carryout

all responsibilities as the allottee. The registered MOA must specify the

equity shareholding of each member of the Consortium in the proposed

SPCs. The SPCs must necessarily be a Firm/Company registered in

India with the appropriate statutory Authority.

6

(e) Execution of the lease de ed will be made in favour of either the

relevant member(s) or t he Special Purpose Company(ies) (SPC)(s),

which should be a registered firm or an incorporated company. The

relevant members/SPC's may, separately, or together in any

combination, sub- divide this allotted plot. However, the area of each of

such sub divided plots proposed for execution of lease deed, as

described above, should not be less than 20,000 sq. mtrs and the said

sub division should be in accordance with the planning norms of the

GNIDA. The lead member of the consortium shall have to retain at least

26% of the shareh olding as per MOA, till the completion certificate of at

least one phase of the project is obtained from Greater NOIDA Authority.’

7. Thus, Clause 8(e) of the scheme required a consortium to form a

‘Special Purpose Company’ (SPC) to undertake development on the

allotted plot. Accordingly, the consortium of EIL, Raus Infras Limited and

Shalini Holdings Limited incorporated Earth Towne Infrastructures Private

Limited (ETIPL) on 21.07.2010 as the SPC. Lease deed dated 01.09.2010

was thereupon executed by GNIDA leasing out the subject plot to ETIPL

for 90 years, commencing from 01.09.2010. The lease deed recorded that

GNIDA had approved the name and status of ETIPL on the request of the

consortium to develop and erect the project on the plot. It was also noted

that the lessee, ETIPL, was a SPC, comprising EIL (78% shareholding –

lead member), Raus Infras Limited (11% shareholding – relevant member)

and Shalini Holdings Limited (11% shareholding – relevant member). The

lease deed also recorded that GNIDA had been informed that the SPC

members had agreed amongst themselves that EIL would always remain

the lead member of the SPC and its shareholding therein would remain

unchanged till the occupancy/completion certificate of at least one phase

7

of the project was obtained from GNIDA. The lease deed, however,

permitted the SPC to transfer/sell up to 49% of its shareholding, again

subject to the same aforestated condition. The total premium payable

under the lease deed was ₹74,26,95 ,000/-. The lease deed noted that

10% of the premium plus the excess area amount, adding up to

₹7,46,91,000/ -, was paid by the lessee, ETIPL. There was to be a

moratorium of 24 months, during which period, only the interest was

payable in half-yearly instalments and upon expiry of said period, the

balance 90%, i.e., ₹66,84,25,500/-, was to be paid in 16 half-yearly

instalments. Instalment Nos. 1 to 4, the half-yearly interest payments,

commenced from 19.09.2010, and the premium payments started from

19.09.2012, with the final instalment payable on 19.03.2020. After

execution of the lease deed, an unregistered development agreement was

entered into on 09.09.2010 between ETIPL and EIL, whereby ETIPL

conferred the right to develop the land upon EIL. The area-sharing ratio

was stipulated as 18% to ETIPL and 82% to EIL.

8. Separately and much earlier, GNIDA had allotted 60,705 square

metres of land in Plot No. 1 at Sector Tech Zone area in Greater Nodia

Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, to NIIT

Multimedia Limited for development of IT industries and IT enabled

services for 90 years. Pursuant thereto , lease deed dated 04.02.2008 was

executed by GNIDA in favour of NIIT Multim edia Limited over a reduced

8

area of 58,866 square metres. Pertinently, this company became a

subsidiary of EIL in 2011 and its change of name as Neo Multimedia

Limited was approved by GNIDA on 21.02.2011. Development Agreement

dated 25.04.2011 was executed by and between Neo Multimedia Limited

and EIL, whereby the development on the subject plot of land was to be

undertaken by EIL.

9. GNIDA had also allotted 20,235 square metres of land in Plot No.

48, Sector Knowledge Park-V, in Greater Nodia Industrial Development

Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, to Nishtha Software Private Limited,

another subsidiary of EIL, for development of facilities relating to IT and

IT enabled services. Pursuant thereto, GNIDA executed lease deed dated

01.09.2009 in its favour for 90 years for an increased area of 20,911.24

square metres. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 20.02.2010

was executed between Nishtha Software Private Limited and EIL,

whereby development on the plot was to be undertaken by EIL.

10. In effect, EIL was to undertake the development on all three plots of

land leased out by GNIDA . The residential project on the land leased out

to ETIPL was named ‘Earth Towne ’ while the project to be developed on

the land leased to Neo Multimedia Limited was named ‘Earth TechOne’

and the project on the land leased to Nishtha Software Private Limited

was called ‘Earth Sapphire Court’. Building permissions were obtained by

the respective lessees of the se plots from GNIDA and a large number of

9

home/office space buyers booked homes/office spaces in these projects,

paying substantial monies to the developer, EIL, and in some cases, to

the lessees. The projects were also registered with the Uttar Pradesh Real

Estate Regulatory Authority.

11. While so, at the instance of Deepak Khanna, a financial creditor,

CIRP was initiated against EIL. His application under Section 7 of the

Code was admitted by the NCLT on 06.06.2018. Initially, one Surinder

Kumar Juneja was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)

for EIL, the CD. The NCLT caused public announcement of initiation of the

CIRP against EIL under Section 13 of the Code on 12.06.2018. The

Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted and its first meeting was

held on 05.12.2018. Later, Akash Singhal was substituted as the

Resolution Professional (RP) by the CoC. The CoC comprised the HDFC

Bank and 4,229 allottees, i.e., home/office space buyers.

12. ‘Invitation for Expression of Interest’ in Form G was issued by the

RP on 19.04.2019 in respect of all the projects. However, there was no

response thereto and the RP then invited resolution plans project -wise

also, as an alternative, in addition to plans for all the projects. The revised

Form G was published on 22.05.2019. In this regard, we may refer to the

‘Clarification’ to Regulation 36A (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)

Regulations, 2016, whereby a Resolution Professional, after approval of

10

the CoC, is empowered to invite a resolution plan for each real estate

project or group of projects of the corporate debtor. This clarification was

inserted with effect from 15.02.2024, vide Notification dated 15.02.2024.

Even before this amendment, the NCLAT and this Court have affirmed

that the CIRP in real estate cases can be project-specific, limiting such

insolvency process to projects in default so as to ensure protection of

homebuyers in other projects, which still remain viable. In Indiabulls

Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Ram Kishore Arora and

others

4

, this Court refused to interfere with the NCLAT’s order permitting

insolvency process project-wise. More recently, in Mansi Brar Fernandes

vs. Shubha Sharma and another

5

, this Court observed that resolution of

real estate insolvency should, as a rule, proceed on a project-specific

basis rather than against the corporate debtor in its entirety, unless

circumstances justify otherwise, as this would protect solvent projects and

genuine homebuyers from collateral prejudice.

13. Pursuant to the revised Form G, three resolution applicants came

forward, viz., BPT Infra Projects Private Limited, Roma and Alpha. BPT

Infra Projects Limited ’s plan was rejected by the CoC. Roma’s resolution

plan for ‘Earth Towne’ was approved by the CoC in its 14

th

meeting held

on 26.08.2019. After the CoC’s approval, GNIDA addressed letter dated

4

AIR 2023 SC 2273

5

(2025) 259 Comp Cas 769 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1972

11

18.09.2019 to the RP, stating that the dues payable to it by ETIPL were

₹148,37,46,148/-. The NCLT approved the acceptance of Roma’s

resolution plan, vide order dated 05.04.2021 passed in C.A. No. 751 of

2019 in CP (IB)-401(ND)/2017.

14. At this stage, we may note that, apart from the projects that were to

be developed by EIL on the plots leased out by GNIDA, a separate project

named ‘Earth Copia’ was also being undertaken by it on freehold land in

Sector 112, Gurugram, Dwarka Expressway, Haryana. This land had

nothing to do with GNIDA and, in consequence, no dues were payable to

it in relation thereto. Alpha’s resolution plan covered four projects of EIL,

including Earth Copia. Alpha’s resolution plan was approved by the CoC

at its 19

th

meeting held on 11.11.2019. Thereafter, it was approved by the

NCLT on 08.0 6.2021 in relation to three projects, viz., Earth TechOne,

Earth Sapphire and Earth Copia. The fourth project, viz., Earth Iconic, was

dealt with separately by the NCLT in another CIRP initiated by Celestial

Estates Private Limited and Alpha’s resolution plan was approved for that

project in that case. The order dated 08.06.2021 passed by the NCLT,

therefore, covered the remaining three projects. However, as stated

earlier, Earth Copia had nothing to do with GNIDA. Notably, one of the

appeals filed before the NCLAT by GNIDA assailed NCLT’s order dated

08.06.2021, but no distinction was drawn by GNIDA between the projects

that it had an interest in and Earth Copia, which had nothing to do with it.

12

The impugned judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the NCLAT also lost

sight of this aspect, as reference was made therein to only two projects,

i.e., Earth Sapphire and Earth TechOne, as being the subject matter of

NCLT’s order dated 08.06.2021 in the context of Alpha’s resolution plan.

15. IA No. 4235 of 2021 was filed by Roma in CP (IB) No. 401(ND)/2017

seeking a direction to GNIDA to transfer the leased land in its favour. The

application was opposed by GNIDA contending that such transfer would

be against the terms of ETIPL’s lease deed. However, the NCLT allowed

the IA by order dated 07.12.2021, leading to GNIDA challenging it by way

of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 180 of 2022. The NCLAT passed an

interim order on 01.06.2022 in GNIDA’s appeals to the effect that GNIDA

was not obliged to transfer the leasehold lands in favour of the successful

resolution applicants pursuant to the NCLT’s orders. This interim order

attained finality on 14.07.2022, when this Court dismissed Civil Appeal

No. 4748 of 2022 filed by Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association.

16. The above sequence of events indicates that the land leases were

in favour of the CD’s two subsidiaries. As regards Earth Towne, the land

allotment was in favour of the consortium, comprising EIL, Raus Infras

and Shalini Holdings Limited. However, as per GNIDA’s own scheme, the

SPC, viz., ETIPL, came to be incorporated and a lease was executed by

GNIDA in its favour. The lease deed, however, made it clear that the lead

member, EIL, was to retain the major shareholding therein, initially shown

13

as 78%, and was to retain its status as the lead member till issuance of

the occupancy/completion certificate in relation to at least one phase of

the project. We may also note that EIL, the lead member with 78%

shareholding in ETIPL, thereafter increased it to 98%. As per the lease

deed, it was the lessee, ETIPL, that was to undertake payment of the

interest/premium as per the schedule therein. The paid-up capital of

ETIPL was, however, only ₹1 lakh and it was EIL that paid ₹51.88 crores

to GNIDA against the interest/premium payable under the lease deed.

Admittedly, there was default thereafter in such payments. GNIDA issued

notices to ETIPL in that regard on 04.04.2019, 16.07.2019, 29.01.2020

and 01.05.2020. By the year 2016 , EIL had constructed only twelve towers

and completed foundation work of five towers in Earth Towne.

17. GNIDA’s complaint before the NCLAT wa s that the RP did not keep

it informed of the proceedings in the CIRP and it was only after approval

of Roma’s resolution plan, vide order dated 05.04.2021, that GNIDA was

informed of the same by the RP, vide letter dated 26.07.2021. As per

GNIDA, as on 31.03.2022 , ETIPL was to pay it ₹215,87,18,190/-. GNIDA

also claimed that, as on 24.03.2022, Neo Multimedia Private Limited was

liable to pay it ₹19,76,10,064/- and Nishtha Software Private Limited had

to pay it ₹11,15,15,009/-. That apart, additional compensation and lease

rentals were also allegedly payable. GNIDA claimed that several notices

of defaults in payment were issued to these lessees also.

14

18. Per contra, the other side contended before the NCLAT that GNIDA

was fully aware of the fact that the projects were being executed by EIL,

as evidenced by its letter dated 11.05.2015 to the Senior Superintendent

of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, wherein GNIDA itself mentioned that EIL

was engaged in the construction work. In this context it was argued before

the NCLAT that ETIPL was nothing but an alter ego of EIL and this was a

fit case to pierce and lift the corporate veil. It was also contended that the

companies had common directors and promoters and ETIPL had no

separate business of its own. It was pointed out that the RP sought

relevant information/documents from GNIDA in respect of all three

projects, viz., Earth TechOne, Earth Sapphire Court and Earth Towne,

under his letter dated 28.05.2019 and, therefore, GNIDA could not claim

ignorance of the CIRP proceedings. On this basis, it was argued that

GNIDA, having kept silent all through the proceedings , could not seek to

overturn the orders passed by the NCLT approving the resolution plans,

which were binding on all the stakeholders. Alpha contended before the

NCLAT that its resolution plan had been approved at the 19

th

CoC meeting

held on 11.11.2019 with a whopping 9 1.39% vote share. According to it,

GNIDA filed its claim at a belated stage only on 11.11.2021 with the IRP

and not the RP, despite being aware of the CIRP proceedings.

19. Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association got impleaded before

the NCLAT. Its grievance was that the construction of Earth Towne stood

15

stalled since 2016 and members of the a ssociation, being homebuyers,

were suffering irreparable loss. The association pointed out that the RP

had admitted the claims of 1,878 homebuyers, amounting to ₹438 crore.

It stated that its members had met the Additional Chief Executive Officer

of GNIDA on 28.06.2017, long before initiation of the CIRP against EIL,

but despite the same no steps were taken by GNIDA to either recover its

dues or hasten completion of the project. According to it , the Additional

Chief Executive Officer of GNIDA had told them that it would recalculate

the principal and interest and check if it could waive the penal interest from

2016 onwards, so as to bring in a new developer for a settlement.

20. The NCLAT also permitted Earth TechOne Patrons Independent

Association and Sapphire Patrons Independent Common Association,

which claimed to be registered a ssociations of office space buyers in

those projects, to participate in the proceedings. Their complaint was that

Earth Sapphire Court ha d been launched in the year 2010 while Earth

TechOne was commenced in the year 2012, whereupon EIL had collected

monies from the prospective buyers in both projects. According to them,

EIL had promised 12% assured returns which were paid till September,

2015, but no payments were made thereafter. They claimed that a

meeting had been held on 20.05.2016, wherein the Chief Executive

Officer of GNIDA had warned EIL that action would be taken against it in

the light of the grievances put forth by the members of the associations.

16

They further claimed that they had given a representation on 27.07.2016

to GNIDA praying that strict action be taken against EIL, followed by

meetings on 08.05.2017 and 16.05.2017. They claimed that despite such

steps being taken, GNIDA had failed to take action against EIL. They

contended before the NCLAT that Alpha’s resolution plan contemplated

waiver of the dues payable to GNIDA, but if GNIDA refused to waive such

dues, the office space buyers undertook to bear the liability. They pointed

out that Alpha undertook to complete construction and deliver units to the

buyers in five years but the same stood compromised by GNIDA’s stance.

21. Though it was also argued by the contesting respondents before the

NCLAT that GNIDA’s appeals were time-barred, in terms of Section 61(2)

of the Code, the NCLAT rejected their contention, as extension of time

had been granted by this Court, by freezing limitation, in Suo Moto Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, titled ‘In re: Cognizance for Extension of

Limitation’, owing to the Covid-19 pandemic. The appeals were,

therefore, held to be within time. Having considered the matter on merits ,

the NCLAT framed the following issues for consideration:

(I) Whether in the CIRP proceedings of the Corporate Debtor, i.e.

Earth Infrastructures Limited, the assets of the land holding companies,

i.e., subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor can be treated to be assets of the

Corporate Debtor?

(II) Whether, in the Resolution Plans submitted by the Successful

Resolution Applicants, i.e., Roma Unicon Designex Consortium and

Alpha Corp Development Private Limited, the assets of the subsidiary,

17

i.e., lease lands could have been dealt and the Resolution Plan could

legally contain a clause for transfer of the lease hold rights by the

Appellant in favour of Successful Resolution Applicant without there

being any prior permission from the Appellant?

(III) Whether assets of the subsidiary companies can be dealt with in

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of holding Company?

(IV) Whether the Appellant was required to be made party to the CIRP

proceedings and heard before approval of any resolution plan dealing

with the Project land?

(V) Whether, Resolution Professional acted within the ambit of I & B

Code in giving a certificate that Resolution Plans submitted by Roma

Unicon Designex Consortium and Alpha Corp Development Private

Limited are in accordance with the provisions of the Code?

(VI) Whether Appellant was aware of the development carried out by the

Corporate Debtor on the lease land before commencement of the CIRP

of the Corporate Debtor?

(VII) What is the way out in the facts and circumstances of the present

case?

22. Issues I, II and III were taken up together. The NCLAT noted that, in

terms of the ‘Explanation’ to Section 18, the assets of a subsidiary of the

corporate debtor could not be included within the term ‘assets’. This

observation was made in the context of the leasehold rights having been

conferred by GNIDA, not upon EIL, the CD, but upon ETI, which was

practically its subsidiary. The same logic was applied to the leasehold

rights held by the other subsidiary companies of EIL, viz., Neo Multimedia

Limited and Nishtha Software Private Limited.

23. The NCLAT also noted that the Information Memorandum brought

out by the RP did not include the project lands as the assets of EIL. The

18

NCLAT, therefore, opined that there was no occasion for the resolution

applicants to include such project lands in their resolution plans . According

to the NCLAT, the resolution plans sought to transfer not only the

development rights over the project lands but also the title over the lands

in favour of third parties, without obtaining prior approval of the lessor,

GNIDA. The NCLAT noted that transfer of lands by GNIDA was subject to

the terms in the lease deeds and the permission to transfer the lands was

to be granted by GNIDA on fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein.

Ignoring the same, the resolution plans contained provisions, whereby

GNIDA was obligated to transfer the project lands to the successful

resolution applicants. Observing that GNIDA was not a party to the

development agreements/MoU that EIL had with the lessees, its

subsidiaries, whereby it undertook the development on the subject lands,

the NCLAT held that GNIDA was neither the creditor of EIL, the CD, nor

was it a stakeholder in the resolution plans and was, therefore, not bound

by them in any manner.

24. Adverting to the contention that this was a fit case for lifting the

corporate veil, reference was made by the NCLAT to the decision of this

Court in Vodafone International Holdings BV vs. Union of India and

another

6

, which took note of the legal status of holding companies and

6

(2012) 6 SCC 613

19

subsidiary companies as they were, in essence, separate legal entities.

Reference was also made to Jaypee Kensington Boulevard

Apartments Welfare Association and others vs. NBCC (India) Limited

and others

7

, wherein this Court held that only the assets of the corporate

debtor could be subjected to the resolution plan and not the assets of its

subsidiary. That was also a case involving the grant of leasehold rights to

a corporate debtor by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development

Authority (YEIDA), an authority constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar

Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, like GNIDA. This Court

held that, without the approval of that authority, no transfer could have

taken place even by way of a sub-lease. Reference was also made to the

decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

(MCGM) vs. Abhilash Lal and others

8

, which held to the same effect.

25. The NCLAT then referred to the condition pertaining to transfer in

the lease deed dated 01.09.2010 and opined that the resolution plan could

not have contained a clause for transfer of that land without GNIDA

approving such transfer. The NCLAT, accordingly, answered Issue No. I,

holding that the assets of the three subsidiary companies of EIL, the CD,

could not be treated as its assets. Issue No. II was also answered in the

negative, holding that the resolution plans of Roma and Alpha could not

7

(2022) 1 SCC 401 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 253

8

(2020) 13 SCC 234

20

have dealt with the project lands which were leased out to EIL’s subsidiary

companies by GNIDA. Issue No. III was answered on the same lines,

holding that the assets of the subsidiary companies could not have been

dealt with in the CIRP of the holding company, EIL, without the permission

of the lessor, GNIDA.

26. On Issue No. IV, the NCLAT held that GNIDA ought to have been

made a party to the CIRP proceedings before approval of any resolution

plan involving GNIDA’s project lands. On Issue No. V, the NCLAT found

fault with the RP for not keeping GNIDA informed of the progress of the

CIRP despite GNIDA’s letter dated 18.09.2019. The NCLAT concluded

that the RP failed to act within the ambit of the Code while certifying that

the resolution plans submitted by Roma and Alpha were in accordance

with the provisions thereof. The NCLAT, accordingly, directed its Registry

to forward a copy of the judgment to the IBBI to examine the work and

conduct of the RP and take action as it deemed fit and proper. On Issue

No. VI, the NCLAT held that knowledge of GNIDA about the development

being carried out by EIL was not sufficient to be treated as consent for

transfer of the lands to the successful resolution applicants.

27. On Issue No. VII, the NCLAT took note of the fact that the

homebuyers had approached the Allahabad High Court, which passed an

order on 23.02.2016 directing them to represent the matter to the Chief

Executive Officer of GNIDA, which was then required to deal with the

21

matter. Pursuant thereto, complaints were made by two associations of

buyers, i.e., of Earth Sapphire Court and Earth TechOne, to the Chief

Executive Officer of GNIDA on 27.07.2016, 02.08.2016 and 20.06.2017.

Reference was also made to the meeting held with the Chief Executive

Officer of GNIDA and the Minister concerned on 11.05.2017. Despite the

buyers doing all this, no action was taken by GNIDA. The NCLAT also

noted that during the meetings held with the allottees, it was stated on

behalf of GNIDA that the issue of penal interest would be considered

favourably. The NCLAT also noted that one of the obligations under the

lease deeds that GNIDA had executed in favour of the lessees was that

GNIDA would monitor development of the projects. The obligation to

monitor the projects, per the NCLAT, included the obligation to ensure that

the projects were completed in time and that necessary action would be

initiated against defaulting parties. Reference was made by the NCLAT to

the decision of this Court in Noida E ntrepreneurs Association vs. Noida

and others

9

, wherein this Court had observed the ‘public trust doctrine’ is

a part of the law of the land and has grown from Article 21 of the

Constitution. It was noted therein that the power vesting in a public

authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty, to be exercised in

larger public and social interest, and public authorities could not play fast

9

(2011) 6 SCC 508

22

and loose with the powers vested in them. The NCLAT observed that the

facts brought on record demonstrated that hundreds of crores were

received from the allottees, who were waiting for the past several years to

take possession of the units allotted to them, but the projects stood stalled

since 2016. The NCLAT also noted the offer made by the associations of

buyers of Earth Sapphire Court and Earth TechOne that they were ready

to pay the dues of GNIDA in the interest of development of the projects.

The NCLAT concluded that GNIDA had not been diligent in taking steps

for recovery of its dues and was, therefore, not entitled to charge penal

interest. The NCLAT, accordingly, directed GNIDA to waive the penal

interest and recalculate its dues.

28. The NCLAT opined that the way out for the RP was to make an

application along with the associations of buyers of the respective projects

to GNIDA, seeking permission for transfer of the lands to prospective

resolution applicants who were then to execute the projects after payment

of GNIDA’s dues. The NCLAT left it open to GNIDA to enter into

arrangements with such resolution applicants and buyers’ associations for

payment of the dues, whereupon it could transfer the lands so that the

projects could be developed by the resolution applicants. The RP was

directed to publish a fresh Form G, inviting resolution plans with the

specific condition that the resolution plans would be presented to the CoC

for consideration only after GNIDA’s dues were paid and its permission

23

was obtained for transfer of the leasehold lands. Roma and Alpha were

also permitted to file their resolution plans. GNIDA was directed to

recalculate its dues and communicate the same to the RP and the

associations, without charging penal interest, within a time frame. The

fresh resolution plans submitted by the resolution applicants were to be

examined by the RP and placed before the CoC for consideration and

approval. GNIDA was made a party to the CIRP proceedings and was held

entitled to participate in the process thereafter. The steps to be taken

pursuant to the judgment, till submission of an application by the RP to

the NCLT for approval of the plans, if any, were to be completed within six

months. The CIRP period was extended by six months from that date. The

appeals were disposed of with these directions, setting aside the orders

dated 05.04.2021, 08.06.2021 and 07.12.2021 passed by the NCLT.

29. This being the factual milieu, we may first take up the issue of EIL’s

Gurugram project, viz., Earth Copia. The land on which Earth Copia was

to be developed was acquired by Aurochem Buildtech Private Limited, a

wholly owned subsidiary of EIL, through Collaboration Agreement dated

30.07.2010 with eight landowners. Tripartite Agreement dated 04.05.2012

was then executed, whereby possession and full development rights were

transferred to EIL and the landowners’ claims stood fully settled.

According to Earth Copia Owners Society, the appellant in Civil Appeal

No. 3438 of 2023, it comprised 393 homebuyers of 536 units in Earth

24

Copia and majority of those homebuyers voted in favour of Alpha’s

resolution plan dated 15.10.2019. Earth Copia Owners Society pointed

out that GNIDA’s appeals before the NCLAT were only in relation to lands

leased out by it to the subsidiary companies of EIL and, therefore, Earth

Copia was not part of that litigation. It further pointed out that Alpha’s

resolution plan dated 15.10.2019 was severable, as it provided that any

portion thereof which was held invalid would not affect the remaining

parts, which would survive independently. It also pointed out that three

blocks of the project had been completed up to 90% and the remaining

blocks were still in the range of 40-80% completion. The Society

contended that the NCLAT erroneously set aside the approval of Alpha’s

entire resolution plan without noticing that the order dated 08.06.2021

passed by the NCLT included approval of that resolution plan in relation

to Earth Copia also, which had nothing whatsoever to do with GNIDA.

We find considerable force in this argument, as GNIDA had no grievance

apropos this project and ought to have clarified this aspect in its appeal

before the NCLAT filed against the NCLT’s order dated 08.06.2021.

30. An intervenor, Earth Buyers Association for Justice, seeks to come

on record before us so as to challenge Alpha’s resolution plan in so far as

it relates to Earth Copia also. Alpha’s resolution plan had been approved

by 91.39% voting share of the CoC and the intervenor, was not a member

of the CoC. Twenty-nine homebuyers who had not voted for the plan are

25

members of the intervenor. In this regard, Section 25A(3A) of the Code

assumes importance. It provides that an authorised representative under

Section 21(6A) of the Code would cast his vote on behalf of the class of

financial creditors he represents, such as homebuyers, in accordance with

the decision taken by a vote of more than 50% of the voting share of the

financial creditors he represents, who have cast their vote. The

homebuyers of Earth Copia were, accordingly, represented by their

authorised representative, who voted in favour of Alpha’s resolution plan

dated 15.10.2019, as per the desire of majority of those homebuyers as a

class. It is, therefore, not open to individual homebuyers, who may have

been part of the minority that dissented thereto, to gain a foothold by

opposing the majority’s decision. A few persons within such class cannot

dissent with the majority vote in favour of the resolution plan. In Jaypee

Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association (supra), this

Court held that allottees, even if not a homogeneous group, could vote

either to approve or disapprove the resolution plan and even if divergence

of views within the class may exist, when casting a vote in the CoC, the

vote would have to be cast as a class.

31. Significantly, this intervenor had raised objections to the approval of

Alpha’s resolution plan but the same were rejected by the NCLT in its order

dated 08.06.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the intervenor filed Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 283 of 2022 but the same was dismissed by the

26

NCLAT, vide order dated 12.10.2022. Therein, the NCLAT noted that, if

some of the homebuyers had not voted in favour of the plan, they still had

to sail with the majority and the procedural violations alleged by them were

not sufficient to interfere with the order approving the resolution plan. The

NCLAT noted that the resolution plan was approved by 91.39% voting

share in the CoC and the Earth Buyers Association for Justice was not a

member of the CoC. Out of the 35 homebuyers who were sought to be

brought on record individually by way of an application , 29 homebuyers

had not voted for the plan. The NCLAT referred to Section 25A(3A) of the

Code and observed that once the authorised representative of that class

of voters cast his vote on behalf of the financial creditors he represents as

per the decision taken by a vote of more than 50% of the voting share of

those financial creditors, who had cast their vote, there is no possibility for

the dissenting financial creditors in that class to maintain a separate voice

of dissent against the majority vote. The NCLAT, accordingly, held that no

grounds were made out to interfere with the order approving the resolution

plan and dismissed the intervenor’s appeal. This order attained finality as

the intervenor did not choose to approach this Court by filing an appeal

against the said dismissal order.

32. Though Earth Buyers Association for Justice claims that it

represents 949 buyers in EIL’s four projects, as of April, 2025, the fact

remains that it was unsuccessful in its attempts before the NCLT and the

27

NCLAT in raising objections against Alpha’s resolution plan. We are,

therefore, of the opinion that Earth Buyers Association for Justice has no

locus to seek intervention in these appeals and again raise objections to

the approval of the resolution plans of Alpha and Roma.

33. We may also note that, upon a complaint, the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) issued show-cause notice dated

27.10.2023 to Akash Singhal, the RP of EIL. Thereupon, the IBBI passed

order dated 06.02.2025 suspending Akash Singhal’s registration for three

years, effective from 06.03.2025. WP(C) No. 2906 of 2025 was filed by

Akash Singhal against the aforestated order dated 06.02.2025 and the

same is pending before the Delhi High Court. However, while suspending

the RP’s registration, the IBBI left it to the CoCs/Stakeholders

Consultation Committees of all the corporate debtors in whose cases

Akash Singhal was providing services to decide about his continuation

with those existing assignments. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the

IBBI, the CoC of EIL decided to continue Akash Singhal as the RP, in terms

of Section 23 of the Code, i.e., in relation to managing EIL’s affairs,

including the maintaining of bank accounts, preservation of assets and

records, representing EIL before judicial and quasi-judicial fora, etc.

34. As regards the other three projects on GNIDA’s leased lands, we

may note that GNIDA is empowered under Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh

Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, to allot land on lease basis subject

28

to the terms and conditions determined by it. It is pursuant to this power

that the subject lands were leased out by it to the companies under the

control of EIL. We find that the lease deeds executed by GNIDA in favour

of the lessees, viz., the three companies, specifically provided that the

lessees would develop and erect the proposed buildings on the demised

premises in accordance with the plans approved by it, duly ensuring

compliance with the requirements set out in the schedules to the lease

deeds. The lessees were not to erect or permit to be erected any new

building without the permission in writing of GNIDA and except in

accordance with the terms of such permission in writing and the plan, if

any, approved by GNIDA. The lessees were to develop the projects

meeting the stipulated norms of development as set out in the lease

deeds. The lessees were to complete construction of the projects within

the stipulated time frames, as set out in the lease deeds - seven years for

all the three lessees. The lease deeds also provided that, in the event the

lessees failed to complete construction within that time, it was lawful for

GNIDA, without prejudice to other rights, to re-enter upon the premises

and determine the leases. The lease deeds specifically provided that

GNIDA would monitor implementation of the projects.

35. Insofar as the lease deed dated 01.09.2010 executed by GNIDA in

favour of ETIPL is concerned, the same provided that the lessee was to

use the allotted plot for construction of group housing/flats/plots and that

29

it was entitled to allot the dwelling units on sub-lease basis to its allotees.

Further transfer/sub-lease was, however, to be governed by GNIDA’s

transfer policy. The sub-lessees were to use the premises only for

residential use. The construction was to be completed within seven years

from the date of execution of the lease deed but, prior to that, the lessee

had to complete construction of a minimum 50% of the total floor area

ratio of the allotted plot, as per the approved lay out plan, and get a

completion/occupancy certificate of the first phase within three years from

the date of execution of the lease deed. Extension of time for completion

of the project was contemplated up to a maximum period of another three

years only, coupled with penalty.

36. As already stated supra, after initiation of the CIRP proceedings

against EIL on 06.06.2018, t he NCLT caused public announcement of the

same on 12.06.2018. The CoC was constituted and its first meeting was

held on 05.12.2018. A public announcement was made by the IRP on

13.12.2018, inviting claims against EIL, the CD. On 19.12.2018, the IRP

informed GNIDA about the initiation of CIRP proceedings against EIL. The

RP was appointed on 18.03.2019 by the CoC. On 28.05.2019, the RP

wrote to GNIDA, calling for its dues in relation to all three projects. GNIDA

did not respond to these letters or submit claims at that time. On

21.06.2019, the RP published the Information Memorandum for the three

projects on GNIDA’s leased lands and the project on the freehold land in

30

Gurgaon. As GNIDA had not intimated its dues in time, the Information

Memorandum mentioned only the estimated dues payable to GNIDA.

37. Roma’s resolution plan was approved by the CoC on 26.08.2019 and

the RP filed an application before the NCLT on 03.09.2019 seeking its

approval. It was only thereafter, on 18.09.2019, that GNIDA addressed a

letter to the RP stating its claimed dues in relation to Earth Towne. On

11.11.2019, Alpha’s resolution plan was approved by the CoC for Earth

TechOne, Earth Sapphire Court and Earth Copia. No claim was filed by

GNIDA in relation to Earth Sapphire. On 11.11.2021, GNIDA filed a claim

in relation to its dues for Earth TechOne, not before the RP, but before the

IRP, who had exited from the picture long prior thereto.

38. GNIDA, being an operational creditor of Neo Multimedia Limited and

Nishtha Software Private Limited, could file its claims during the CIRP

proceedings against EIL, under Section 60(5)(b) of the Code. NCLT had

jurisdiction thereunder to entertain claims by or against the corporate

debtor, including claims by or against its subsidiary situated in India.

Despite such entitlement, GNIDA failed to file its claims with the RP. It was

only on 11.11.2021 that GNIDA filed its claim with the displaced IRP about

its dues from Neo Multimedia Limited but no steps were taken by it in

relation to Nishtha Software Private Limited.

39. This Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, vide its

order dated 13.04.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2023 and batch.

31

However, unmindful of the said order, GNIDA cancelled the allotment of

lands in favour of Neo Multimedia Limited and Nishtha Software Private

Limited, by order dated 16.06.2023. This order was communicated to the

RP only on 22.07.2023 but was not informed to this Court on 04.07.2023,

11.07.2023 and 17.07.2023, when the matters were listed. It was only

after the RP filed IA No. 180402 of 2023 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2406-2407

of 2023, that GNIDA withdrew the aforestated cancellation order on

19.08.2025.

40. This Court also passed a separate order on 17.07.2023 in Civil

Appeal No. 4619 of 2023, filed by UTOPIA, calling upon GNIDA to file an

affidavit stating whether it was ready and willing to take up the projects

and complete the construction so as to give homes /office spaces to the

buyers on the terms agreed between such buyers and the builders. In the

event GNIDA was not ready to do so, it was called upon to indicate how it

intended to protect the interests of the buyers in the context of the rules

and regulations framed by it or in terms of the policy decisions taken by it

apropos situations where the builder committed default or was liquidated.

41. Pursuant to the order dated 17.07.2023, GNIDA filed affidavit dated

24.12.2024. Therein, its Manager stated that, owing to the limited

infrastructure available with it, GNIDA would not be able to take up the

projects and complete the construction. Details were furnished of the

payments made by the lessees from time to time. We find that, i nsofar as

32

Neo Multimedia Limited is concerned, no payments were made after

06.01.2011 but the payments made earlier to that date were in excess of

what was required to be paid. As regards Nishtha Software Private

Limited, payments stopped on 20.09.2010. Again, the payments made

prior to that date were in excess of the required payments. Lastly, ETIPL

stopped payments after 28.02.2013. However, payments made by it

earlier to that date were also in excess of the required payments. GNIDA

stated that no details were available with it as to development of the land

by Neo Multimedia Limited but insofar as Nishtha Software Private Limited

was concerned, a site inspection was said to have been carried out in

2018 and it was found that a boundary wall had been constructed and the

buildings were under construction. As regards ETIPL, a site inspection

was stated to have been carried out by an auditor on 28.02.2018, which

reflected that the project was lagging behind, but no steps were taken.

42. GNIDA also furnished details of the notices issued by it to the

lessees in the context of defaults in payment. Notices were issued to Neo

Multimedia Limited on 08.10.2012, 09.01.2019, 08.02.2019, 25.04.2019,

06.05.2019 and 04.03.2020. Nishtha Software Private Limited was issued

notices on 28.09.2016, 19.06.2017, 12.10.2018, 02.01.2019, 08.02.2019,

18.03.2019, 22.10.2019 and 04.03.2020. ETIPL was issued notices on

15.10.2013, 25.05.2015, 08.07.2016, 06.09.2016, 30.09.2016 and

13.07.2018. GNIDA stated that a public notice was put up on its website

33

on 05.10.2017, listing defaulting builders, which included Neo Multimedia

Limited, with dues of ₹7,65,48,821/-; Nitisha Software Private Limited,

with dues of ₹2,09,12,037/-; and ETIPL, with dues of ₹105,02,87,896/-.

43. Thereafter, the Chairman of GNIDA filed an affidavit, notarised on

25.09.2025. He stated therein that he was holding office as an additional

duty as there was no full-time Chairman appointed for GNIDA. He stated

that the Chief Executive Officer of GNIDA was its highest full-time officer.

He apologized for the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by GNIDA

cancelling the allotment of lands to Neo Multimedia Limited and Nishtha

Software Private Limited. He referred to the order dated 19.08.2025,

recalling the same, and stated that no further action with regard to

resumption of possession or refund of amounts was taken thereafter.

According to him, the outstanding dues, including interest, payable to

GNIDA as on 31.08.2025, stood as follows: Neo Multimedia Limited -

₹31,82,88,309/-; Nishtha Software Private Limited - ₹17,57,25,184/-; and

ETIPL - ₹309,79,44,038/-. We may note that insofar as Neo Multimedia

Limited is concerned, out of the total dues of ₹31,82,88,309/-,

₹1,97,91,781/- was penal interest payable on the premium dues;

₹1,23,18,440/- was the penal interest payable on the additional

compensation; and ₹11,34,81,931/- was the time-extension penalty.

Therefore, ₹14,55,92,152/-, in all, was attributable to penal interest/penal

charges. Similarly, out of the total dues of ₹17,57,25,184/- payable by

34

Nishtha Software Private Limited, ₹43,12,694/- was the penal interest on

the additional compensation; ₹87,29,431/- was the penal interest on the

lease rent; and ₹8,31,69,781/- was the time-extension penalty. Thus,

₹9,62,11,906/- out of the total ₹17,57,25,184/- was attributable to penal

interest/penal charges. We may also note that there was no default in

payment of premium by Nishtha Software Private Limited. As regards

ETIPL, out of the total dues of ₹309,79,44,039/-, the penal interest on the

premium dues was ₹31,88,34,014/- while ₹5,48,38,863/- was the penal

interest on the additional compensation and ₹4,26,96,421/- was the penal

interest on the lease rent along with time-extension penalty of

₹18,02,05,897/-, totalling to ₹59,65,75,195/-. Therefore, devoid of penal

interest/penal charges, the dues of ETIPL were just over ₹250 crore.

44. GNDIA is in appeal against the judgment dated 30.01.2023, insofar

as the NCLAT denied it entitlement to claim penal interest. According to it,

the finding of NCLAT that there was delay and inaction on its part is

incorrect, as sufficient notices were sent by it to the lessees raising claims

in that regard. GNIDA, therefore, has a grievance apropos the direction of

the NCLAT to drop its penal interest/penal charges and to recalculate its

dues. According to GNIDA, the terms of its lease deeds are sacrosanct

and ought not to be interfered with, be it during the CIRP proceedings or

thereafter. Though GNIDA would contend that the cost at which the

successful resolution applicants, Alpha and Roma, would be selling the

35

homes/office spaces would include the cost of the land and construction

apart from a profit component, the fact remains that the land would not be

sold to the home/office space buyers, but they would only assume the

status of sub-lessees. The ownership of the land would not stand

transferred and would remain with GNIDA. This was the original intent of

the scheme of allotment, and it does not stand altered even if the

resolution plans are given effect to. What is contemplated under the

resolution plans is merely transfer of possession of the lands to the

successful resolution applicants to enable them to complete the projects

and to deliver the units to the allottees, as sub-lessees .

45. In Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Prabhjit

Singh Soni and another

10

, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court opined that, in

terms of the Section 13-A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area

Development Act, 1976, GNIDA has to be treated as a secured creditor in

respect of the amount payable to it by a corporate debtor and in that

regard, a charge is statutorily created on the assets of such corporate

debtor. Though reliance is placed on this decision by GNIDA, it is not open

to it to approbate and reprobate. On the one hand, GNIDA contends that

EIL, the CD, had nothing to do with the lands leased out by it to the three

companies and that those lands ought not to have formed part of EIL’s

10

(2024) 6 SCC 767

36

assets during the CIRP proceedings. On the other hand, GNIDA raised

claims before the IRP and the RP and it also complained of not being kept

abreast of CIRP proceedings against EIL.

46. Significantly, it was only on 11.11.2021 that GNIDA filed a claim in

relation to Earth TechOne but, surprisingly, GNIDA addressed its letter to

the IRP and not to the RP, though the IRP was replaced as long back as

in March, 2019. This claim was also belated as Alpha’s resolution plan

was approved by the CoC on 11.11.2019 and by the NCLT on 08.06.2021.

As noted by the NCLAT itself, there was no error made in the Information

Memorandum which specifically recorded that the landholding entities for

Earth Sapphire Court, Earth TechOne and Earth Towne were Nishtha

Software Private Limited, Neo Multimedia Limited and ETIPL, the

subsidiaries of EIL, to whom lands were leased out by GNIDA. Further,

the resolution plans of both Alpha and Roma unequivocally recorded that

only the development rights in relation to those projects formed part

thereof and not the title to the underlying lands. It may be noted that the

CoC approved Roma’s resolution plan on 26.08.2019 and the RP filed an

application before the NCLT seeking its approval on 03.09.2019.

However, it was only on 18.09.2019 that GNIDA raised a claim for ₹148

crore. Surprisingly, in the said letter, GNIDA projected itself as a financial

creditor of EIL; requested processing of its claims during the CIRP; and

sought that the leasehold rights should not be transferred without securing

37

its dues. As this claim was, in any event, belated it could not have been

considered in view of the decision of this Court in RPS Infrastructure

Limited vs. Mukul Kumar and another

11

. Surprisingly, GNIDA never

raised a claim for its alleged dues in relation to Earth Sapphire Court.

47. Further, we may note that GNIDA is conveniently ignoring certain

crucial facts. Two letters had been addressed to GNIDA after initiation of

the CIRP proceedings against EIL - the IRP sent letter dated 19.12.2018

while the RP, after his appointment by the CoC, addressed letter dated

28.05.2019. These letters reflect that GNIDA was informed about the

initiation of the CIRP proceedings against EIL; that the development rights

over the project lands leased out by GNIDA to the three companies

controlled by EIL were also included in the CIRP proceedings; and GNIDA

was called upon to inform its dues. Despite the non-submission of claims

by GNIDA within time, the RP intimated the dues of GNIDA to the

prospective resolution applicants after gathering the same from the

resources available. The RP’s Information Memorandum clearly specified

that only the development rights and leasehold rights of the lessees, which

were 100% subsidiaries of EIL, were included therein.

48. Intermittent and sporadic notices with regard to defaults in payment

are all that GNIDA has to offer at this stage. We may note that, though

11

(2023) 10 SCC 718

38

payments were allegedly stopped by the lessees, viz., Neo Multimedia

Limited, Nishtha Software Private Limited and ETIPL, on 06.01.2011,

20.09.2010 and 28.02.2013 respectively, GNIDA did not bother to follow

up on such defaults on a regular basis and only occasional notices were

issued to the lessees. As regards Neo Multimedia Limited, the first notice

was issued only in October, 2012 followed by a notice, over 8 years later,

on 09.01.2019 and three notices, thereafter, in February, April and May,

2019, and the last notice on 04.03.2020. All the notices, except the first

one, were issued after commencement of the CIRP proceedings! As

regards Nishtha Software Private Limited, the last payment was allegedly

made on 20.09.2010 but default notices were issued by GNIDA only in

2016, i.e., on 28.09.2016, followed by a notice more than 8 months later

on 19.06.2017. Thereafter, with a gap of over one year and three months,

GNIDA issued a notice on 12.10.2018. Later notices were in the year 2019

and the last was in March, 2020. Insofar as ETIPL is concerned, the last

payment was stated to have been made on 28.02.2013 and the first

default notice was issued by GNIDA on 15.10.2013. However, having

issued the aforestated notice within a short period of time after the default,

GNIDA took no steps till 25.05.2015, when the second notice was issued.

Again, GNIDA slept over the matter for a year and issued the next notice

on 08.07.2016 followed by two notices in September, 2016. Then, with a

hiatus of nearly two years, GNIDA issued the last notice on 13.07.2018.

39

49. We are, therefore, of the opinion that GNIDA contributed greatly to

the present imbroglio by its persistent inaction and ineptitude all through.

Having executed lease deeds for development of the lands, it failed to

keep track of and monitor the development being undertaken on such

lands to ensure timely completion thereof within the stipulated period of

seven years. We may also note that long prior to initiation of the CIRP

proceedings against EIL, the CD, GNIDA was informed by the aggrieved

home/office space buyers of the tardy progress in the construction of the

projects but failed to take necessary coercive steps against the lessees

and/or the developer, EIL. In this regard, we may also note that GNIDA

cannot claim ignorance of the fact that it was EIL that was executing the

development of the projects on all three plots of land leased out by GNIDA

to the three companies. Having addressed a letter to the police authorities

in relation to EIL’s construction on the land leased out to ETIPL, GNIDA

cannot now seek to claim ignorance of the reality that it was EIL that was

undertaking the construction of the projects on all three leased lands. This

is further fortified by the fact that all three lessees submitted documents

to GNIDA while seeking approval of building plans/sanctions based on the

certification secured from various authorities by EIL itself. Though GNIDA

would contend that it was not a party to the applications made by EIL for

obtaining permissions/NOCs from various authorities, there is no

escaping the fact that the lessees submitted all such documents to GNIDA

40

for securing sanction and permission for building plans. The question of

GNIDA claiming ignorance of EIL’s role in the development of the projects,

therefore, does not arise.

50. Turning a blind eye to all that was going on and also not going on,

GNIDA did not even choose to be vigilant after initiation of the CIRP

proceedings against EIL. GNIDA was informed of the same by the IRP in

December, 2018 and by the RP in March, 2019, but took no steps to

participate in the proceedings. On the other hand, GNIDA seeks to blame

the RP for not informing it of the progress of the CIRP proceedings!!

GNIDA’s correspondence was inconsistent and impulsive, unmindful of

the strict timelines contemplated by the Code. The lack of responsibility

and application of mind on the part of GNIDA is manifest from the fact that

even when it did submit its hugely belated claim on 11.11.2021 in relation

to its alleged dues from Neo Multimedia Limited, it addressed it to the IRP

who had long before exited from the scene upon appointment of the RP

by the CoC. GNIDA never ever raised a claim in relation to the dues of

Nishtha Software Private Limited. Even as regards its dues from ETIPL,

we may note that GNIDA addressed its letter to the RP only on

18.09.2019, after the approval of Roma’s resolution plan by the CoC on

26.08.2019. The same non-application of mind is demonstrated by

GNIDA’s failure to point out to the NCLAT that its appeal against the

NCLT’s order dated 08.06.2021 was limited only to the projects on its own

41

leased lands and did not extend to the approval of Alpha’s resolution plan

in relation to Earth Copia, EIL’s project on freehold land in Gurugram.

51. Having allowed so much water to flow under the bridge not only to its

own detriment but also to the detriment of the innocent home/office space

buyers who had invested their hard-earned monies for securing their own

homes/office spaces, it is not open to GNIDA to portray itself as an

uninformed and injured victim at this late stage. We may also note that,

even before this Court, GNIDA chose to approbate and reprobate

continuously. This incoherency and lack of consistency on its part is again

illustrative of its continued failure to take timely measures , despite being

fully aware of the situation. On one hand, GNIDA contend s that it has no

role to play as EIL, the CD, had no interest in the lands leased out by it to

the three companies but, on the other, GNIDA did raise a claim in relation

to two out of the three projects on those leased lands. In fact, it raised a

claim before the RP in September, 2019, claiming to be a financial creditor

and that its dues of ₹149 crore had to be admitted.

52. Before this Court, GNIDA attempted to bring in a third party, viz.,

Engineering Projects (India) Limited (EPIL), at the behest of the Earth

Buyers Association for Justice, to complete EIL’s stalled projects. We may

note that EPIL, itself, has not come forward to stand by any such offer and

only a letter addressed by it is relied upon. Perusal of the letter dated

23.12.2024 addressed to GNIDA by EPIL reflects that, pursuant to a

42

meeting held on 21.12.2024, the Executive Director of EPIL stated that

they were ready and willing to complete the stalled projects of EIL situated

at Greater Noida. Having stated so, he said that this was an ‘in-principle

approval’ which was contingent upon further study of the financial and

other documents/information of the projects that would be made available

to the company. It was, therefore, not a firm or unconditional commitment

by EPIL. Significantly, EPIL did not even choose to come before us, if it

was really keen on pursuing its offer. Therefore, EPIL’s offer is not worthy

of consideration and is, accordingly, eschewed from consideration .

53. The sheet anchor of GNIDA’s case is that the assets of subsidiary

companies cannot be made part of the assets of the holding company that

was subjected to CIRP proceedings. Section 2(87) of the Companies Act,

2013, defines a subsidiary company or subsidiary to mean a separate

legal entity. Reliance was placed by GNIDA upon the recent judgment of

this Court in BRS Ventures Investments Limited vs. SREI

Infrastructure Finance Limited and another

12

, which reiterated that a

holding company and its subsidiaries are distinct legal entities and merely

because the holding company owns the entire shareholding in the

subsidiary company, it would not dilute its separate legal existence. No

doubt, the concept of holding companies and subsidiary companies is

12

(2025) 1 SCC 456

43

firmly entrenched in our corporate scenario and once it is established that

the holding and subsidiary companies are independent legal entities in

their own right, the sanctity of such legal status has to be maintained

unless circumstances exist that require lifting/piercing of the corporate

veil. The question that arises is whether this was a fit case to lift the

corporate veil. Though the NCLAT was averse to doing so, we are inclined

to hold otherwise. In that regard, we may refer to the observations of a

Constitution Bench in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts

Ltd. and others

13

in the context of lifting of the corporate veil:

‘…..Generally and broadly speaking, we may say that the corporate veil

may be lifted where a statute itself contemplates lifting the veil, or fraud

or improper conduct is intended to be prevented, or a taxing statute or a

beneficent statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies

are inextricably connected as to be, in reality, part of one concern. It is

neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of cases where

lifting the veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the

relevant statutory or other provisions, the object sought to be achieved,

the impugned conduct, the involvement of the element of public interest,

the effect on parties who may be affected, etc.’

54. As is clear from the aforestated observations when, in reality,

associated or group companies are inextricably connected so as to form

part of one concern, the corporate veil should be lifted. Applying this

principle in ArcelorMittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta

13

(1986) 1 SCC 264

44

and others

14

, this Court affirmed that where protection of public interest

is of paramount importance or where a company has been formed to

evade obligations enforced by law and by the Courts, the Court would

disregard the corporate veil. It was further observed that this principle

would be applied even to group companies so that one is able to look at

the economic entity of the group as a whole.

55. Neo Multimedia Limited and Nishtha Software Private Limited were

both wholly owned subsidiaries of EIL, the CD. They had leases over the

lands in which EIL was to develop the projects, viz., Earth TechOne and

Earth Sapphire Court. ETIPL was incorporated only to enable GNIDA’s

leasing of land for development of Earth Towne and was controlled by EIL,

with a 98% shareholding. ETIPL, therefore, stands on a different footing

from the other two companies, insofar as GNIDA is concerned. In any

event, we may note that all three companies either share common

directors with EIL and/or have their relations as directors. The only assets

of the three companies were the lands leased out to them by GNIDA for

these projects. The companies’ shareholdings indicate that EIL was the

dominant and majority shareholder.

56. Further, GNIDA was clearly aware that it was EIL, the CD, that was

developing the projects on the lands leased out by it to the three

14

(2019) 2 SCC 1

45

companies. GNIDA cannot claim ignorance of this on the mere ground

that it was not a party to the development agreements/MoU. This was the

situation in relation to two projects – Earth Sapphire Court as well as Earth

TechOne. Insofar as Earth Towne is concerned, as already stated, GNIDA

itself required the consortium of the three companies to incorporate a SPC

and it was pursuant to this requirement, that ETIPL was brought into

existence. Further, the lease deed executed by GNIDA in favour of ETIPL

made it clear that EIL was to be the lead member of ETIPL, retaining its

majority shareholding as well as its lead role. It is an admitted fact that

EIL, which had a 78% shareholding in ETIPL, increased it to 98%. ETIPL

executed an agreement conferring the right to develop the project on the

leased land in favour of EIL. GNIDA cannot, therefore, look askance at the

role played by EIL in the development of Earth Towne. More so, in the light

of its own letter to the police authorities acknowledging EIL’s role in the

development of Earth Towne, which we have already referred to. In effect,

GNIDA cannot claim ignorance of the constructions by EIL in relation to

all three projects. E ach case that comes before a Court, in the context of

lifting of the corporate veil, would have to turn upon its own individual facts.

Given the facts obtaining presently, we are of the firm view that this was

an eminently fit case for lifting the corporate veil, as EIL was the main

driving force in the development of the project s and in payment of GNIDA’s

dues. The subsidiary companies were only a front. In the light of this

46

finding, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the issue raised in the context

of Sections 18 and 25 of the Code, apropos the scope of the term ‘assets’.

57. Alpha’s resolution plan, which was approved by the CoC on

11.11.2019 and by the NCLT on 08.06.2021, provided under Clause 4

thereof, that it would seek a waiver from GNIDA of its dues but added that

if such waiver was not granted, the dues would be proportionately

distributed amongst all the allottees. Clause 12.1 of the resolution plan

contemplated issuance of a ‘No Dues Certificate’ by GNIDA prior to

conveyances in relation to Earth Sapphire Court as well as Earth

TechOne. Alpha, however, stated before this Court that it was willing to

pay GNIDA its dues without penal interest/penal charges, given sufficient

amount of time, without burdening the homebuyers.

58. In EIL’s CoC, HDFC Bank and the home/office space buyers were

the only financial creditors. HDFC Bank, which claimed to be a secured

financial creditor, dissented with Alpha’s resolution plan. Its objection to

the acceptance of the resolution plan was rejected by the NCLT and that

order became final. Therefore, the Monitoring Committee comprised only

the buyers. The Monitoring Committee was impleaded as a party

respondent by GNIDA in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 629 of 2022 filed

before the NCLAT. Sanjay Bhalla, t he authorized representative of the

Monitoring Committee, is supporting Alpha’s resolution plan and filed Civil

Appeal No. 1743 of 2023 assailing the judgment dated 30.01.2023 in

47

relation to Earth Sapphire Court and Earth TechOne. He supports Alpha,

whose resolution plan was approved by the order dated 08.06.2021 and

seeks restoration thereof. Notably, t he Minutes of the Monitoring

Committee’s meeting held on 10.08.2025 evidence that Alpha undertook

that it would absorb the dues payable to GNIDA and the same would not

be burdened upon the allottees/buyers.

59. Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association represents about

1600 homebuyers of Earth Towne, of whom 1222 homebuyers are its

registered members. The total number of homebuyers in the project are

stated to be around 1,878. The majority of the homebuyers are, therefore,

represented by this association, which supports Roma’s resolution plan.

We may also note that Roma, being the successful resolution applicant,

expressed its willingness to settle the dues of GNIDA given sufficient time.

Roma does not propose to charge GNIDA’s dues from the homebuyers of

Earth Towne and is willing to bear the entire burden by itself.

60. Earth Towne Flat Buyers Welfare Association filed Civil Appeal No.

2466 of 2023, aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.01.2023 insofar as it

pertained to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 630 of 2022. This association

participated in the proceedings before the NCLAT and contributed

substantially, by bringing out relevant facts reflecting upon the

somnolence and delay on the part of GNIDA in taking appropriate steps

against EIL, despite its failures on all counts.

48

61. Civil Appeal No. 2491 of 2023 was filed by Roma assailing the

judgment dated 30.01.2023 insofar as it related to Company Appeal (AT)

(Ins) No. 630 of 2022,. Roma seeks restoration of the order dated

05.04.2021 approving its resolution plan.

62. UTOPIA is the association of allottees of the Earth TechOne, while

Sapphire Patrons Independent Common Association (SPICA) is the

associtation of allottees of Earth Sapphire Court. Both these associations

participated in the proceedings before the NCLAT and supported the

NCLT orders approving the resolution plans. On the same lines, they now

support the said plans and seek setting aside of the judgment dated

30.01.2023 passed by the NCLAT, insofar as it pertained to Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 629 of 2022.

63. Civil Appeal Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 were filed by the Earth United

Consumer Association, assailing the judgment dated 30.01.2023 in

relation to all three appeals and supporting the orders approving the

resolution plans of Roma and Alpha. The association claimed to be a

consumer association, representing the buyers/allottees of EIL’s projects.

Significantly, this association was not a party to the earlier proceedings.

In any event, as it is only playing a supporting role, reiterating the grounds

taken by the parties to the litigation, we need not entertain the same.

64. Of relevant significance is the fact that the Ministry of Housing and

Urban Affairs, Government of India, constituted a committee under the

49

chairmanship of Mr. Amitabh Kant, former Chief Executive Officer of the

Policy Commission, vide order dated 31.03.2023, in relation to stalled real

estate projects. This Committee was to recommend measures to protect

the interests of homebuyers and to complete such stalled projects in a

timely manner. The Committee submitted its report on 24.07.2023. The

Committee noted that real estate was an important sector and more than

200 industries were linked to it, creating a large number of jobs. It was

also noted that as per the estimate of the Indian Banks Association, about

4.12 lakh houses across the country were not completed due to financial

constraints of the developers. Of these, around 2.4 lakh houses were

stated to be in the National Capital Region under Authorities, such as

NOIDA, GNIDA and YEIDA. Upon the recommendations made by the

Committee, the Government of Uttar Pradesh was stated to have

formulated a policy/package so as to protect the interests of all parties

while promoting development. It was recorded that the main objective of

the policy/package was to provide houses/flats with registry to the

homebuyers as early as possible. Group housing projects were covered

thereby but not projects that were commercial, industrial, etc.

65. The scheme of the policy/package envisages co-developers being

given permission to complete the projects after recognizing them in the

records of the Authority concerned and, thereupon, the responsibility for

paying the dues of the said Authority and completing the project would be

50

jointly shared by the co-developer and the allottee. All outstanding

amounts were to be re-verified by an independent chartered accountant/

third party and recalculated as per the conditions of the lease deed and

the orders issued by the Authority from time to time. Time extension to

complete the project was to be given, free of cost, subject to a maximum

period of three years. Net outstanding amounts of upto ₹100 crore were

to be paid in a maximum of one year while net dues of upto ₹500 crore

could be cleared over two years. If the outstanding amount exceeded

₹500 crore, it could be paid within three years. In the event the developer

failed to complete the project within the stipulated three years, penalty of

20% was to be levied on the remaining dues and efforts were to be made

by the Authority concerned to get the project completed. If the dues were

already paid in full to the Authority, then no fine was to be imposed. This

policy/package was communicated by the Infrastructure and Industrial

Development Commissioner, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to the Chief

Executive Officers of the Authorities, including GNIDA and YEIDA.

66. Though, the aforestated policy/package would have application only

to Earth Towne, being a residential project, and may not apply stricto

sensu to the other two projects, which are commercial in nature, we may

note the higher objective underlying this policy, i.e., to secure completion

of stalled development projects. As that was the very aim of the CIRP

proceedings initiated against EIL, the CD, we are of the opinion that by

51

adopting the policy to some extent to suit the present situation, the

successful resolution applicants, Alpha and Roma, can be permitted to

proceed with their resolution plans to complete the projects, viz., Earth

Towne, Earth Sapphire Court and Earth TechOne, while protecting the

interests of GNIDA also.

67. As rightly pointed out by the NCLAT, the inertia on the part of GNIDA

and its failure to protect the interests of the home/office space buyers,

apart from its own interests, clearly disentitles it from levying penal

interest/penal charges/time-extension penalties at this stage. However,

notwithstanding the lapses on its part, GNIDA would still be entitled to

recover the principal amounts due to it, after deducting the penal interest,

penal charges and time-extension penalties. The dues in that regard shall

be recalculated by GNIDA, as indicated hereinabove, and communicated

to Alpha and Roma within two weeks from the date of this judgment. Once

such amounts are quantified, the resolution applicants shall make

necessary arrangements for payment of those dues. We would expect

Alpha and Roma, the successful resolution applicants, to stand by their

commitment that such dues would not be burdened upon the home/office

space buyers who have already suffered sufficiently by the delay in the

execution of the projects. The said dues shall be cleared by Alpha and

Roma on their own. The payments in that regard, in equated monthly

instalments, shall be made over twenty four months. The first such

52

payment shall be made on or before the 7

th

day of July, 2026. Registration

of the homes/office spaces in favour of the allottees shall be undertaken

only after payment of the dues of GNIDA in totality and with its active

participation, so as to confer the status of sub-lessees upon the buyers.

68. Given the fact that GNIDA is responsible for this litigation to a great

extent, owing to its failure in monitoring the development of the projects

and in taking timely measures to realise its dues from EIL, it would not be

entitled to any interest on the principal amounts due for the extended

period of twenty four months, during which the successful resolution

applicants, Alpha and Roma, are required to clear its dues. The resolution

plans of Alpha and Roma shall stand restored. The successful resolution

applicants shall endeavour to complete the projects within the time frames

indicated by them in their resolution plans. Those time frames shall

commence from the 1

st

day of June, 2026.

69. On the above analysis, Civil Appeal Nos. 1526 of 2023, 1743 of 2023,

2491 of 2023, 2466 of 2023, 3438 of 2023 and 4619 of 2023 are allowed.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2406-07 of 2023 are disposed of in the above terms.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3435-3437 of 2023 and Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 19132

of 2023 are dismissed and lastly, Civil Appeal Nos. 2756 and 2763 of 2023

filed by GNIDA are also dismissed.

70. IA No. 174061 of 2023 was filed by Surinder Kumar Juneja, the

erstwhile IRP who was appointed on 06.06.2018, at the time of admission

53

of the CIRP against EIL. He sought intervention in this appeal only

because of the status quo order dated 13.04.2023 passed by this Court.

Owing to the said order, his application in IA No. 1194 of 2021 pending

before the NCLT, filed under Section 60(5) of the Code, for payment of his

professional fees, has also been put on hold. As the appeals are being

disposed of, the status quo order shall cease to operate. His application

can, therefore, be considered by the NCLT, independently and on its own

merits, in accordance with law.

71. IA No. 1878 of 2024 was filed by Airwil Intellicity Social Welfare

Society, seeking to come on record on the ground that the issue raised in

the present appeals is similar to that in the CIRP proceedings that it is

interested in. The application is misconceived and is, accordingly,

rejected. Similarly, IA No. 137704 of 2023 was filed by the consortium of

One City Infrastructure Private Limited and APM Infrastructure Private

Limited, seeking to intervene on the ground that their resolution plan,

which was pending approval before the adjudicating authority, has been

kept on hold owing to the pendency of these appeals. This application is

equally misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.

72. IA No. 137215 of 2023 was filed by one Ms. Manish Rawat,

Resolution Professional of Earth Gracia Buildcon Private Limited, seeking

to intervene in these appeals on the ground that she is the Resolution

Professional of a group company of EIL, which is also facing CIRP

54

proceedings, and has a direct interest in the outcome of these cases, as

the decision in these appeals would decide the fate of numerous allottees

in the project, which was the subject matter of the CIRP against that group

company. However, we are not inclined to accept her intervention in these

appeals and the application is dismissed.

73. IAs for intervention and relief filed by Sanjeev Kumar Singh and

Beena Singh, claiming to be affected homebuyers of Earth Towne, are not

considered as they were not parties before the NCLAT. In any event, their

interests are adequately protected by their association. The applications

are, accordingly, dismissed. IA Nos. 217541-217542 are also rejected, as

the interest of the intervenor is sufficiently represented.

74. IA Nos. 166202 of 2023 and 50758 of 2025, filed by Jambey Tashi

(deceased, represented by LRs) and others, seeking to intervene and also

praying for a direction to NBCC (India) Limited or any other competent

public sector undertaking to submit its detailed proposal for completion of

the projects of EIL and to take over and complete such projects, so as to

hand over the units to the buyers is also rejected.

75. IA No. 77861 of 2023, filed by Earth Buyers Association for Justice,

seeking to come on record, is misconceived as its appeal against the

order dated 08.06.2021 was dismissed and attained finality. Significantly,

it did not disclose this fact in its application for impleadment. Its

applications for directions are also rejected.

55

76. Apart from the aforestated applications, we may note that several

intervention applications were filed by home/office space buyers seeking

to be heard. However, as their interests are sufficiently represented by the

associations which had participated in the proceedings before the NCLAT,

we are not inclined to entertain such individual intervention applications.

77. Similarly, applications have been filed by persons claiming to be

home/office space buyers, who had failed to submit their claims before

the IRP/RP within time and now seek to be impleaded in these appeals to

air their grievances in that regard. As they failed to take necessary steps

at the relevant time by filing applications before the NCLT, if their claims

were not admitted or entertained by the IRP/ RP and as such issues are

outside the scope of these appeals, we are not inclined to entertain the

same. Intervention applications filed by such intervenors and their

applications for directions are, accordingly, rejected .

All other applications shall also stand closed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

……………………...J

[SANJAY KUMAR]

.……………………...J

[ALOK ARADHE ]

New Delhi;

May 05, 2026.