Supreme Court of India· 03 September 2026

Is a development authority's lease of land to be treated as a purely commercial venture?

The Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Private Limited, Ms. Rakesh Verma v. M/s New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ors

2026 INSC 952 · Civil Appeal No. 3132 of 2026
Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran

🔖 Save this judgment 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The authority surely is involved in a commercial venture, but it cannot be divorced from the essential purpose which every local authority pursues and advances — welfare measures without a mere profit motive. The underlying purpose of the lease is to provide adequate infrastructure for the development of industries and commercial establishments and to provide housing, both as a welfare measure and for revenue generation to the local authority; and the essential purpose of development would fail if a stipulation for payment of default charges is brought in.

Headnote

Corporate insolvency resolution process — CIRP costs — Perpetual lease granted by a development authority — Time extension charges — Penalty — Homebuyers as financial creditors — Successful Resolution Applicant — CIRP costs — Time extension charges are penal in nature — Not includible — Held: Time extension charges imposed as a percentage of the lease premium to penalise a defaulting developer are penal in nature, and the directions to treat them as CIRP costs cannot be sustained. (¶14, 16) Penalty — Default of the Corporate Debtor — Homebuyers and the Successful Resolution Applicant — Held further: The homebuyers and the Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be penalised for the past sins of the Corporate Debtor, neither of them having caused the delay; the authority imposing it is concerned essentially with development of the area under its control. (¶15) Development authority — Commercial venture — Welfare purpose — Held further: A development authority is involved in a commercial venture, but that cannot be divorced from the essential purpose every local authority pursues — welfare measures without a mere profit motive. The essential purpose of development would fail if default charges are insisted upon. (¶12, 13) Time extension charges — Beyond the three years stipulated — Disposal — On facts, held: The penalty now mulcted on the SRA and the homebuyers cannot validly be imposed. Directions to treat the time extension charges as CIRP costs set aside; the authority’s claim for charges beyond three years rejected. (¶16, 17)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 12As the original lease deed existed, the stipulation for time extension charges were at 4%, 5% and 6% in the first, second and the third years of delay, respectively with only a stipulation for cancellation of the lease itself after the three year period is over. It would result in resumption of the properties to the NOIDA. The underlying purpose of the lease itself is to provide adequate infrastructure for the development of industries and commercial establishments as also to provide housing by utilisation of lands, both as a welfare measure and revenue generation to the local authority. When the development fructifies, by virtue of the taxes and duties imposed on the various activities as also housing there is considerable generation of money, which is pumped into development activities again. The authority surely is involved in a commercial venture, but it cannot be divorced from the essential purpose which every local authority pursues and advances, i.e.: welfare measures without a mere profit motive. Development brings within its wake infrastructure challenges and these are to be met from the taxes, cesses and duties levied and collected, necessitating prudent financial and economic measures too.

Paragraph 13In the present case, we see that the project was commenced to provide housing, an essential part of development. Lured by the opportunity, many persons had invested their savings with the intention of obtaining a roof over their heads. The project itself ran into rough weather and at this point, the lessee/developer has been declared as a Corporate Debtor. The homebuyers together have pooled money to carry on the project during the CIRP period and now a SRA has come into the picture. The Resolution Plan of the SRA has been accepted by the CoC consisting of the homebuyers alone. It is to be noted that the project was to be completed in the year 2016, and despite another decade having passed, the homebuyers are still left in the lurch. The essential purpose of development would fail if NOIDA brings in a stipulation of payment of default charges.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Authorised Representative for Granite Gate Properties Private Limited, Ms. Rakesh Verma v. M/s New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Whether the time extension charges are to be treated as CIRP costs?Can homebuyers and a Successful Resolution Applicant be made to bear penalty charges for the developer's delay?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections