Case at a Glance
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) leased two group-housing plots to Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., which later went into insolvency. Both authorities challenged the resolution plan the NCLT approved in 2022, arguing that their unpaid lease premium was secured debt. The NCLAT held that neither lease deed creates a “security interest” under Section 3(31) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It also held that the 2026 Explanation to that provision, which excludes charges created purely by operation of law, is clarificatory and applies retrospectively. Both appeals were dismissed and the plan stands.
The corporate debtor, Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., held Plot GH-02A in Sector 1, Greater Noida (lease deed of 4 April 2011) and Plot GH-05/B in Sector 137, Noida (lease deed of 30 July 2010), both meant for group housing. GNIDA said the total premium was about Rs 37.38 crore, payable in instalments. After defaults it obtained a recovery certificate for about Rs 37.83 crore. NOIDA filed its claim in Form B, the form for operational creditors, and the revised resolution plan of 12 October 2019 provided it about Rs 25 crore. GNIDA was allotted about Rs 18.5 crore. The Committee of Creditors, which was dominated by homebuyers, approved the plan, and the NCLT, New Delhi, approved it on 12 September 2022.
Both authorities appealed in 2023, relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., (2022) 09 SC CK 0016 and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni. They argued that their dues were backed by a first charge over the leased land and had to be treated as secured debt in the distribution waterfall under Section 53. On 6 July 2026 the parties agreed that only one issue remained: whether the two authorities are secured creditors, and if so, what follows.
The Key Question Before the Court
Do the lease deeds of GNIDA and NOIDA, or their statutory powers of recovery, create a “security interest” under Section 3(31) of the IBC, so that their unpaid premium must rank as secured debt in the resolution plan?
How the NCLAT read the lease deeds and the 2026 amendment
The Tribunal found that both lease deeds were materially identical standard forms. The mortgage clause (Clause F) gives the authority a “first charge” only over its share of the unearned increase in land value. That right arises only if the lessee mortgages the land and the mortgage is enforced by sale or foreclosure. Nothing of that kind had happened, so it was at most a contingent right. Clause 11 lets arrears be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Tribunal held this is a mode of recovery under the statute, not a charge created by agreement. It distinguished its own decision in Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. v. Viswanadha Sarma, (2026) 06 NCLAT CK 0794, where the sub-lease had a general, unconditional first charge securing “all dues of Lessor”. These deeds had nothing comparable.
The IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Act No. 6 of 2026, in force from 26 May 2026) added an Explanation to Section 3(31) excluding security interests created purely by operation of law, including statutory charges. Relying on the Madras High Court in Avenue Realty v. Assistant Commissioner, Srirangam and the Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan, (1995) 01 SC CK 0154, the NCLAT treated the Explanation as clarificatory and therefore retrospective. As a result, the statutory-charge route recognised in Prabhjit Singh Soni was no longer open to the authorities. On fairness, the Tribunal noted that the homebuyers had accepted a bigger haircut than the authorities, so the allocation was not arbitrary. It added that under Section 30(2)(b) the authorities could not claim more than they would receive in liquidation.
What the Court Actually Held
- Neither the GNIDA lease deed nor the NOIDA lease deed creates or evidences a “security interest” under Section 3(31) of the IBC.
- The mortgage clause gives at most a contingent first charge over the lessor’s share of the unearned increase. Clause 11 is only a statutory recovery mechanism.
- The 2026 Explanation to Section 3(31), which excludes charges created purely by operation of law, is clarificatory and applies retrospectively.
- The two authorities’ claims are correctly treated as unsecured statutory or operational dues. Both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many stalled housing projects in Noida and Greater Noida stand on land leased by these authorities. Whether their dues rank above homebuyers can decide whether a resolution plan survives.
- This is one of the first appellate rulings to apply the 2026 IBC amendment, and it narrows the reach of Prabhjit Singh Soni for statutory charges.
- The ruling turns on the actual wording of the lease deed. Authorities whose leases contain a general first-charge clause, like the one in Assets Care, may be placed differently.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Homebuyers
- A resolution plan approved by a homebuyer-majority CoC is not reopened merely because a land authority later claims secured status.
- Plans that give the authority at least its liquidation value are hard to attack as unfair under Section 30(2)(b).
- A secured-creditor argument based only on a statutory recovery power is weak after the 2026 amendment.
For Counsel
- Read the lease or sub-lease clause by clause. A contingent charge over the unearned increase is not a general charge over all dues.
- Plead the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 Explanation to Section 3(31) and its clarificatory nature, relying on R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan.
- Raise classification objections before the NCLT. Here the homebuyers argued the point had been waived.
Key Takeaways
- A lessor’s right to recover dues as arrears of land revenue is a recovery mode, not a contractual security interest.
- Statutory charges created purely by operation of law are excluded from Section 3(31) by the 2026 Explanation, which the NCLAT applied retrospectively.
- Assets Care applies only where the lease has an unconditional first charge over all lessor dues.
- The resolution plan for Shubhkamna Buildtech’s Noida and Greater Noida projects stands.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are Noida and Greater Noida authorities secured creditors in a builder’s insolvency?
On these lease deeds, the NCLAT said no. The deeds did not create a security interest, and the statutory recovery power is excluded by the 2026 Explanation to Section 3(31).
What did the 2026 amendment change?
The IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 added an Explanation to Section 3(31) excluding security interests created purely by operation of law, such as statutory charges. The NCLAT held that it clarifies the law and applies to pending matters.
Did the authorities get nothing?
No. The revised plan gave GNIDA about Rs 18.5 crore and NOIDA about Rs 25 crore. The Tribunal found the homebuyers had taken a bigger haircut than the authorities.
Conclusion
The NCLAT treated the lease deeds as ordinary leases and the authorities’ recovery powers as statutory tools, not as security interests. Read with the 2026 amendment, the ruling leaves land authorities largely to their liquidation-value entitlement in builder insolvencies, unless their lease contains an express, general charge over all dues.
Practical takeaway: In real-estate CIRPs on authority-leased land, check whether the lease contains a general first-charge clause. Without one, the authority’s dues are likely to be treated as unsecured after this ruling.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com