- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
YEIDA Withdraws Appeal Against NCLT Approval Of Ace Infracity’s Bid For Three C Homes
YEIDA Withdraws Appeal Against NCLT Approval Of Ace Infracity’s Bid For Three C Homes
The Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) has withdrawn its appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against an earlier order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approving Ace Infracity’s bid for Three C Homes. This withdrawal follows YEIDA's acceptance of Ace Infracity Developers' proposal to cover compensation payments to farmers.
Prior to this, YEIDA and Ace Infracity were engaged in settlement discussions while the case was still pending at NCLAT. On July 4, 2024, during an NCLAT hearing, YEIDA proposed a compensation arrangement for farmers, which Ace Infracity agreed to, leading to the resolution of the dispute.
"In view of the acceptance of the proposal by the SRA (Ace Infracity), the appellant (YEIDA) is not to proceed with its appeal subject to compliance of the conditions as indicated in the communication dated July 4, 2024, which has been given to counsel for the SRA," NCLAT said.
It further noted: "Recording the aforesaid, we are of the view that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the appeals. The appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to revive."
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) reinstated the land allotment in January 2023. Following this, in June 2023, the NCLT approved Ace Infracity’s resolution plan for Three C Homes. Despite objections from YEIDA, the land-allotting authority, the NCLT deemed the ₹67 crore proposed by the corporate debtor as sufficient to settle their dues and approved Ace Infracity’s bid.
YEIDA subsequently appealed this NCLT order to the NCLAT. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for Three C Homes began in September 2019, and on June 13, 2023, the NCLT sanctioned Ace Infracity's ₹140.39-crore resolution plan.
The fair value of Three C Homes, the corporate debtor, stands at ₹600.87 crore, with a liquidation value of ₹480.70 crore, as outlined in Form-H filed with the application.
When approving Ace Infracity's resolution plan, the NCLT emphasized that the plan had been unanimously approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and stated it could not "interfere with the commercial wisdom" of the lenders.
Despite this, YEIDA challenged the NCLT's decision before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).