Home · Health · Sep 21 archive
GNIDA, NOIDA Denied Secured Creditor Status in Shubhkamna Case
Confirmed
In Short: GNIDA and NOIDA, two authorities involved in the Shubhkamna Buildtech insolvency case, argued that their dues were secured by statutory charges under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976.
GNIDA and NOIDA, two authorities involved in the Shubhkamna Buildtech insolvency case, argued that their dues were secured by statutory charges under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, and should be treated as secured financial creditors under Section 53(1)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The dispute centered on the treatment of GNIDA and NOIDA's dues under the revised resolution plan dated October 12, 2019, which provided ₹18.5 crore towards GNIDA's dues and ₹25 crore towards NOIDA's dues.
NOIDA had originally filed a claim of ₹99.32 crore, while its admitted claim was recorded at ₹41.53 crore.
Both authorities relied on Sections 3(30) and 3(31) of the IBC to claim the status of secured creditors, arguing that their recovery powers amounted to a charge on the property.
The case arose from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Shubhkamna Buildtech, a developer that had obtained leasehold rights over land from GNIDA and NOIDA for housing projects.
GNIDA had leased land in Greater Noida to Shubhkamna in 2011, while NOIDA had leased a plot in Section 137 in 2010.
The developer defaulted on its payment obligations, after which GNIDA claimed it was owed about ₹60.6 crore, while NOIDA claimed about ₹99.3 crore.
After the company entered insolvency proceedings, a resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in 2019, under which GNIDA was allocated ₹18.5 crore and NOIDA ₹25 crore.
Under the IBC, a CoC comprises financial creditors and is constituted for taking decisions regarding insolvency resolution.
Both GNIDA and NOIDA had been treated as operational creditors, whereas they contended they ought to be recognized as secured creditors instead.
The Supreme Court had previously held that a first charge counted as a “security interest” under Section 3(31) of the IBC, making the State Tax Department a secured creditor under the Code.
GNIDA argued that its recovery power amounted to a charge on the property, and the court agreed, treating GNIDA as a secured creditor even though nothing in its lease deed said so.
Background
A secured creditor is a creditor with the benefit of a security interest over some or all of the assets of the debtor.
What's confirmed
- GNIDA and NOIDA, two authorities involved in the Shubhkamna Buildtech insolvency case, argued that their dues were secured by statutory charges under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, and should be treated as secured financial creditors under Section 53(1)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
- The dispute centered on the treatment of GNIDA and NOIDA's dues under the revised resolution plan dated October 12, 2019, which provided ₹18.5 crore towards GNIDA's dues and ₹25 crore towards NOIDA's dues.
- NOIDA had originally filed a claim of ₹99.32 crore, while its admitted claim was recorded at ₹41.53 crore.
- Both authorities relied on Sections 3(30) and 3(31) of the IBC to claim the status of secured creditors, arguing that their recovery powers amounted to a charge on the property.
- The case arose from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Shubhkamna Buildtech, a developer that had obtained leasehold rights over land from GNIDA and NOIDA for housing projects.
- GNIDA had leased land in Greater Noida to Shubhkamna in 2011, while NOIDA had leased a plot in Section 137 in 2010.
- The developer defaulted on its payment obligations, after which GNIDA claimed it was owed about ₹60.6 crore, while NOIDA claimed about ₹99.3 crore.
- After the company entered insolvency proceedings, a resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in 2019, under which GNIDA was allocated ₹18.5 crore and NOIDA ₹25 crore.
- Under the IBC, a CoC comprises financial creditors and is constituted for taking decisions regarding insolvency resolution.
- Both GNIDA and NOIDA had been treated as operational creditors, whereas they contended they ought to be recognized as secured creditors instead.
- The Supreme Court had previously held that a first charge counted as a “security interest” under Section 3(31) of the IBC, making the State Tax Department a secured creditor under the Code.
- GNIDA argued that its recovery power amounted to a charge on the property, and the court agreed, treating GNIDA as a secured creditor even though nothing in its lease deed said so.
What's still developing
- Nothing material beyond the confirmed record.