Noida: Noida Authority has rejected a request by Max Estates Ltd to waive constitution change charges (CIC) of around Rs 67 crore for its acquisition of the stalled Delhi One project in Sector 16B. The charges — mandated under the Authority’s new unified policy that was announced in Feb this year — are applicable because of a complete change in shareholding following insolvency proceedings.Max had initially sought a complete waiver of the CIC, but later proposed to deposit Rs 22 crore — roughly 40% of the assessed charges — in an interest-bearing account with certain conditions. The Authority, however, insisted that the full amount must be paid in keeping with the new policy’s guidelines — unless specifically waived by a competent court, tribunal, or the Authority’s own board.Delhi One, a mixed-use development being implemented by Boulevard Projects, was taken over by Max Estates after it emerged as the successful resolution applicant through proceedings at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).As part of the approved resolution plan, Max offered to settle dues with secured financial creditors and the Authority, which initially raised claims of over Rs 932 crore. But only Rs 325 crore of Noida’s claim was formally accepted under the plan. Seeking to resolve outstanding liabilities and speed up completion of the project, Max submitted a revised conditional offer to pay the Authority Rs 613 crore over three years — which translates to 53% of the total claimed dues — including interest at SBI’s MCLR rate.While the Authority board accepted the settlement offer in-principle, Max also requested a waiver of CIC, arguing that the charges were not justified given the circumstances. When the Authority dragged its feet on the decision, the company approached the Allahabad high court, which in April this year asked the Authority to place the matter before its board and inform the developer of its decision within four weeks.In a letter dated April 21, Max proposed to pay Rs 22 crore as part of CIC charges. The company, however, sought the right to withdraw the amount from the account if the Authority board ruled in its favour and also reserved the option to legally challenge any adverse decision regarding the remaining amount.
