NCLT Mumbai Rejects GNIDA Plea To Recall 2017 Shirdi Industries Resolution Plan

It held that GNIDA was informed of the insolvency process and failed to file its claim despite specific notice.

A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar held that Noida authority could not allege violation of principles of natural justice after it chose not to participate in the insolvency process. It ruled that the approval of the resolution plan was neither ex parte nor illegal.

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of considered view that the applicant's prayer for recall of order dated 12.12.2017 can not be allowed in the absence of satisfaction of this Tribunal that the order dated 12.12.2017 was passed without jurisdiction or was passed in violation of principal of natural justice,” the tribunal observed.

The CIRP against Shirdi Industries was initiated on May 18, 2017, on a voluntary application filed by the corporate debtor. A public announcement inviting claims from creditors was issued on May 23, 2017. The resolution professional had also addressed a specific communication on June 14, 2017, asking GNIDA to submit its claim.

Despite this, GNIDA did not file any claim prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors on October 25, 2017, or its subsequent approval by the tribunal. The resolution plan provided for payment of Rs. 1.40 crore towards GNIDA's principal dues in installments, while waiving interest and penalties.

GNIDA later approached the tribunal, arguing that it was a secured creditor. It said the plan had been approved without hearing it, and that additional liabilities such as compensation payable to original landowners had accrued subsequently.

The tribunal, however, observed that the Noida authority first quantified and communicated its larger demand only on December 6, 2017, after the insolvency proceeding was already well advanced. It held that a party that fails to submit its claim despite notice cannot subsequently seek recall of a concluded resolution plan.

While dismissing the application, the tribunal clarified that GNIDA's right to claim interest on delayed payments under the approved plan would remain open and enforceable in accordance with law.

Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs Devendra Padamchand Jain

Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 48

Case Number: IA 3803 of 2024 In CP IB 839 of 2017

For Applicant: Advocate Aditya Sharma

For Respondents: Advocates Shyam Kapadia, Sourabha Ghosh, Vidhi Sharma, Sophia Hussain, Mily Ghoshal, Anirudh Purshathaman