Skip to main content

Insolvency: Lease premium amount and lease rent are not outside the purview of moratorium

Cause Title : Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 622 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench

Date of Judgment/Order : 12.01.2023

Corum : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Citied: 

Background

NOIDA entered into a lease deed dated 19.08.2011 with M/s GSS Procon Pvt. Ltd. (CD) for the purpose of constructing residential flats on some land. The lease deed was executed for a period of 90 years and the lessee was to pay the lease premium as well as lease rent according to a schedule mentioned therein. The premium was to be paid from 26.02.2014 to 27.07.2021. However, as the Lessee failed in its commitment, an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed. The RP being appointed, NOIDA submitted a letter dated 04.06.2021 to the RP highlighting its dues towards lease premium calculated from 11.10.2019 to 30.06.2021 of a sum of Rs. 15,54,52,427/- and lease rent of the year 2020- 21 and 2021-22 of Rs. 60,74,170/-. The Authority had requested the RP to make the payment of the dues which comes to Rs. 16,15,26,597/- within a period of 15 days. When RP did not reply in time, Section 60(5)(c) read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority based on the law laid down in Section 14(1) of the Insolvency Code and lead to filling of appeal by the RP.

The Appellant submitted that Section 14(1)(d) of the Code  is not applicable at all since the explanation provided under Section 14(d) permitting license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority to continue irrespective of the insolvency process does not apply to lease rent and premium while the Respondents said that lease and premium shall fall within the words “similar grant or right” mentioned the said explanation.

Judgment

Section 14: Moratorium.
14. (1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely:—
.......
(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
[Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;]

The NCLAT allowing the appeal decided that while during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the Code,  there is prohibition against recovery of any property by a lessor, the explanatory note under Section 14(1)(d) says that a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right either given by the Central Govt., State Govt. local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency provided that there is no default in payment in dues of such license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period. 

The NCLAT held that the similar grant or right has to be read in respect of the licence, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance but it cannot be read as the premium amount or lease rent.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more