The NCLAT will consider YEIDA’s appeal in the Jaypee case over increased farmer payments.

NEW DELHI: The Yamuna Motorway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA), which had challenged the NCLT’s decision to authorize Suraksha Group’s proposal to acquire the indebted Jaypee Infratech, said on Tuesday that the insolvency appellate panel NCLAT would hear its case.

The National Company Law Appeal Tribunal (NCLAT), however, declined to postpone the order made on March 7 by the National Company Law Tribunal and stated that a swift resolution was needed.

The NCLAT sent notices to the Suraksha Group and the monitoring panel established to carry out the resolution plan on YEIDA’s petition after finding “substantial merit” in the appeal for increased farmer compensation made by YEIDA.

The appeal brought by YEIDA against the NCLT ruling “requires an early decision,” according to a two-member bench led by Chairman Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Further noting that the NCLT “has virtually extinguished the claim of the appellant (YEIDA) for further farmers compensation by allocating an amount of Rs. 10 lacks, which based to the respondents (Suraksha group and monitoring committee) is the amount to which the appellant is entitled and the said judgment under challenge in this appeal, we have found substantial ground to entertain this appeal and hear the application,” the appellate tribunal

The bench added that there was a strong justification for hearing YEIDA’s appeal.

“We are of the opinion that any determination between the appellant and the corporate debtor (JIL) regarding liability and entitlements of respective parties in regards to the bearing of the additional farmer’s compensation claim shall not be based upon the impugned judgment of the NCLT, insofar as determination of the claim of YEIDA regarding additional compensation,” it stated.

However, the NCLAT also made it clear that there would be no delay in the resolution plan of the Suraksha group’s execution.

According to the statement, “We make it clear that the pending status of this appeal and the aforementioned interim order may not be treated as any restraint in implementation of the plan insofar as other facets of the plan are concerned.”

The NCLAT additionally instructed that the NCLT order “shall not be relied on in the determination of the obligations and rights of the appellant and the corporate debtor in the ongoing proceedings in an arbitration pending before the commercial court”

The External Development Charges (EDCs), unfinished external development work, and other prospective activities were the key reasons why YEIDA, which had entered into an agreement to concession with Jaypee in February 2003, had filed claims for Rs 6,111.59 crore.

Additionally, it had asked for an additional 64.7% in compensation to be paid to farmers from whom it had purchased property. As a result, YEIDA made a demand or claim for roughly Rs 1,689 crore in relation to the increased compensation due to the farmers.

However, NCLT dismissed the claims, stating that it “finds no illegality committed by the SRA/Suraksha by considering the claim of YEIDA as an operational debt and making a provision towards the payment of it in accordance with the provisions of IBC, 2016”

Against JIL, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) began in August 2017 following the filing of an application by a consortium led by IDBI Bank.

The Suraksha Group won the bid with 98.66% of the vote in the fourth round of the bidding process to identify a buyer for JIL in 2021. More than 20,000 homebuyers and up to 12 banks can vote in the Committee of Creditors (CoC).