On 5 May 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Others, neutral citation 2026 INSC 449. The lead appeal arose under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 from a January 2023 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The bench, comprising Sanjay Kumar J. (author) and Alok Aradhe J., handed down a reportable judgment that recalibrates the way statutory authority dues are treated when a CIRP resolution plan is approved.
This is the third significant Supreme Court intervention since 2022 on the question of how Section 31 of the Code interacts with claims of governmental authorities. STO v. Rainbow Papers Ltd. in 2022 placed tax authorities within the secured creditor framework when the statute creates a first charge. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat (P) Ltd. in 2023 returned to the priority-in-liquidation question under Section 53. Alpha Corp v. GNIDA now addresses the resolution-plan question that Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss ARC Ltd. had answered in general terms but not at the operational level required by statutory development authorities holding land leases.
The Underlying Facts
GNIDA is the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976. Between 2008 and 2010, GNIDA allotted three parcels of land to Earth Infrastructures Limited (EIL) and its consortium or subsidiaries. The allotments were by way of lease. The three plots, GH-04 Sector 01 Greater Noida, Plot 1 Sector Tech Zone, and Plot 48 Knowledge Park-V, were used for residential and commercial development.
CIRP was initiated against EIL in 2017 by Deepak Khanna, a financial creditor, under Section 7. The NCLT admitted the petition on 6 June 2018. The Resolution Professional issued Form G in April 2019 inviting expression of interest in respect of the corporate debtor as a whole, then a revised Form G in May 2019 permitting project-wise resolution plans. Roma Buildtech, Alpha Corp, and Nishtha Software submitted plans for the three projects respectively. The plans were approved by the Committee of Creditors and confirmed by the NCLT in 2021.
GNIDA had been informed of the CIRP in December 2018 and again in May 2019 when the RP specifically sought the project-wise dues figures. GNIDA did not respond at that stage. The Information Memorandum, published in May 2019, recorded GNIDA’s silence on the dues question. The resolution plans were drafted, voted, and approved on that basis.
GNIDA challenged the three NCLT approval orders before the NCLAT in 2022. By a common judgment dated 30 January 2023, NCLAT set aside the approvals on the ground that the plans had not adequately provided for the statutory dues claimed by GNIDA. The resolution applicants appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Question Before the Court
The narrow question was whether the resolution plans, which had treated GNIDA’s claims at the value placed by the RP in the Information Memorandum rather than at the higher figures GNIDA later put forward, could be set aside by NCLAT on that ground. The wider question, which the Court addressed in its conclusions, was the procedural duty of a statutory authority that learns of CIRP against an entity holding an allotted land lease.
The Holding
The Supreme Court restored the resolution plans approved by the NCLT. The bench held, in substance, that:
One. A statutory authority that receives notice of CIRP and is invited to submit its claim must do so within the period prescribed under the IBBI CIRP Regulations 2016. Silence at that stage, even on the part of a statutory creditor, has the same procedural consequence as silence on the part of any other creditor. The information asymmetry argument, that the authority did not appreciate the full quantum of dues, was rejected where the authority had been given specific opportunity by the RP.
Two. The Information Memorandum, once published, sets the scope of claims to which the resolution plan must respond. Claims not in the IM cannot be the basis on which an approved plan is later impugned, absent fraud, suppression, or a procedural defect in the publication itself. The clean slate principle codified in Section 31(5) of the IBC, after the 2026 Amendment, reinforces this.
Three. NCLAT exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the plans on the merits of the GNIDA dues question. The standard of review under Section 61 is the four grounds enumerated in Section 61(3) read with Section 30(2), supplemented by the principles in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta and K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank. A plan that satisfies Section 30(2) and was approved by the requisite CoC majority is not to be set aside because a creditor, having had the opportunity, did not engage with the process.
Four. The resolution applicants are entitled to the benefit of the plan as approved, free of any liability to GNIDA above the figures provided for in the plan, subject to the qualification that the lease itself, as a continuing statutory relationship, remains governed by the terms of the original allotment going forward.
Why This Matters Beyond the Earth Infrastructures Estate
The ratio of Alpha Corp v. GNIDA travels well beyond the facts. Statutory authorities holding land allotments to corporate debtors are a recurring fact pattern in Indian insolvency. Greater Noida, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, and similar bodies hold significant exposure to leases granted to real estate, infrastructure, and industrial developers. When a developer enters CIRP, the question of what happens to the lease and the dues becomes acute.
Before Alpha Corp v. GNIDA, the practical pattern was that the authority would sit out the CIRP, allow the plan to be approved, then raise the full statutory dues figure post-approval, often forcing the resolution applicant into protracted litigation or into renegotiation. The Supreme Court has now closed that route. The authority must engage during the CIRP, on the timelines fixed by the Regulations, or accept the plan’s treatment of its claim.
For resolution applicants, the practical effect is large. The biggest single uncertainty in bidding for distressed real estate or infrastructure assets has been the statutory authority dues exposure. That uncertainty is materially reduced. A plan that follows the IBBI Regulations, publishes the IM correctly, and is approved by the CoC carries a defensible answer to any post-approval challenge by a statutory authority.
Limits of the Ratio
Three qualifications attach to the ratio.
First, the case proceeds on the factual finding that GNIDA was given specific opportunity to engage and did not. Where a statutory authority can show that the RP did not give it the opportunity prescribed by the Regulations, or that the IM was not properly published, the case is different.
Second, the lease relationship itself survives. Alpha Corp v. GNIDA does not extinguish the obligations under the lease deed for the period following plan approval. The statutory authority can enforce the lease terms going forward, including periodic dues, on the principle that the lease is a continuing statutory relationship, not a one-time claim resolved in CIRP.
Third, the case is decided in the resolution plan context, not the liquidation context. The Paschimanchal Vidyut framework remains intact for liquidation under Section 53. The two judgments now sit alongside each other, addressing distinct procedural moments.
Operational Consequences
For resolution professionals, the discipline is to document the engagement with statutory authorities meticulously. Notice in writing, copy to the authority’s nodal officer, follow-up by registered post, retention of acknowledgements. The IM must clearly carry the authority’s claim figure or, where the authority is silent, a clear notation that the authority was invited and did not respond. The Form G publication and circulation log should be filed with the application for plan approval.
For statutory authorities, the discipline is the obverse. A nodal officer must monitor CIRP notices in respect of allotted land, submit claims within the prescribed period, and engage in the CoC process where the authority qualifies. The risk of post-approval challenge is now narrower.
For resolution applicants conducting due diligence on a distressed asset with statutory land exposure, three questions should now be asked at the data room stage:
- Did the RP issue notice to the statutory authority? On what date? Was acknowledgement obtained?
- Did the IM treat the authority’s claim? At what figure? Was the authority given opportunity to dispute that figure during the CoC process?
- Does the plan, as approved, provide for the lease to continue on its original terms post-approval?
Plans that answer all three questions in the affirmative are now significantly more defensible against post-approval challenge.
Conclusion
Alpha Corp v. GNIDA does for statutory authority dues in the resolution plan context what Rainbow Papers did in the liquidation priority context and what the 2026 Amendment did for the admission threshold. It tightens the procedural ground rules and rewards parties who engage with the CIRP on its own timelines. The judgment is consistent with the Court’s broader trajectory of treating the IBC as a disciplined, time-bound code in which procedural participation is the price of substantive protection.
The next question the Court will face, foreseeable in the short to medium term, is the treatment of statutory authority dues in the CIIRP framework introduced by the 2026 Amendment, where the Adjudicating Authority is not involved during the process and the conventional notice-and-publication procedure is altered. The Alpha Corp v. GNIDA framework will need to be re-articulated for that context. That, however, is a question for the next round of litigation, not this one.
Endnotes
1. Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Others, 2026 INSC 449, decided 5 May 2026.
2. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, Section 62, Section 30(2), Section 31, Section 53, Section 61.
3. IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016, regulations governing claim submission, IM publication, and CoC process.
4. STO v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 545 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162.
5. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat (P) Ltd., (2023) 10 SCC 60 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 842.
6. Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss ARC Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 313.
7. Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1478.
8. K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank, (2019) 12 SCC 150 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 257.
9. Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, Section 3.