Noida Special Economic Zone Authority vs Manish Agarwal & Ors.

Held: It is settled 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 – The 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 – 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 ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions – Conclusion as culled 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 could be pressed into service or continues – These observations took care of the assertions of the appellant with regard to the statutory dues and the claims as have been made and put forth relatable to the areas of lease – 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 except as provided by Section 30(2) of IBC 2016 – There is no such violation of the statute or the procedure – It has come on record and stands admitted that the Resolution Plan had already been implemented and the dues as found payable under the Resolution Plan have been disbursed to the concerned parties and also the appellant – In light of the records and various decisions of the Supreme Court, the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted – Thus, the orders dated 05.10.2020 and 27.11.2020, as passed by the NCLT and approved by the NCLAT vide its impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2022, do not call for any interference. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 20] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.238 – Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 – Overriding effect of IBC, 2016: Held: As far as the submission that exemptions from NOIDA Special Economic Zone (NSEZ) payments, including 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 Applicant 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 provisions of IBC 2016 to have an overriding effect over the other laws – If that be so, the obvious effect is that the same would prevail, leading to the provisions as contained in the SEZ Act 2005 giving way to IBC 2016. [Para 17]