The Noida Authority has turned down Max Estates’ request to forgo the ₹67 crore Constitution Change Charges (CIC) linked to its acquisition of the stalled Delhi One project. These charges, introduced under a new policy in February, are applicable because of a complete change in shareholding that resulted from insolvency proceedings.
Initially, Max Estates had sought a full exemption from the CIC. Later, it proposed depositing ₹22 crore—roughly 40% of the calculated charges—into an interest-bearing account, contingent on certain terms. However, the Noida Authority maintained that the entire amount must be paid in line with its new policy, emphasizing that a waiver could only be granted by a court, tribunal, or the Authority’s board.
Delhi One, a mixed-use development previously undertaken by Boulevard Projects, was taken over by Max Estates after it emerged as the successful bidder in proceedings at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). As part of its approved resolution plan, Max offered to settle outstanding payments with secured financial creditors and the Noida Authority. The Authority initially claimed ₹932 crore, but only ₹325 crore of this was formally recognized under the plan.
To address remaining liabilities and accelerate the project’s completion, Max submitted a revised conditional offer to pay the Authority ₹613 crore over three years. This sum represents 53% of the total claimed dues and includes interest calculated at SBI’s MCLR rate. While the Authority’s board agreed to this settlement in principle, Max simultaneously sought a CIC waiver, contending that the charges were not warranted given the situation.
Due to the Authority’s delay in deciding, Max approached the Allahabad High Court. In April, the court instructed the Authority to present the issue to its board and inform the developer of its decision within four weeks. In an April 21 letter, Max formally offered to pay ₹22 crore towards the CIC, but stipulated that it reserved the right to withdraw this amount if the Authority’s board ruled in its favor, and also retained the option to legally contest any adverse decision concerning the remaining balance.
