2021 (9) TMI 580 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Acceptance of after expiry of EMD Deposit Date - postponing the relevant dates of Auction, by way of the impugned corrigendum - violative of procedures/fairness/sanctity attached with Auction Process or not - HELD THAT - The IBBI - the Respondent no. 3 is not the necessary party and therefore, directed the Applicant to delete the name of the IBBI from the Memo of Parties to the application. Further, the Applicant has submitted that Respondent no. 3 may be directed to nominate the Liquidator. Since it is already observed through our Order dated 15th February 2021 that the IBBI is not a necessary party in the proceedings, therefore, we are not inclined to give any directions to the IBBI as prayed at Sl. No. vii x of the prayers. Hence, the prayers of the Applicant are not liable to be accepted. The application is Dismissed being infructuous.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for various reliefs related to the auction process and liquidation proceedings.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application seeking multiple reliefs, including expeditious disposal of the application, quashing of the corrigendum related to the auction process, removal of the liquidator, and directions for conducting the auction process in compliance with regulations. The Tribunal heard the arguments of the applicant and the liquidator. During the hearing, it was noted that the IBBI was not a necessary party in the proceedings, and therefore, the directions sought against it were not granted. Additionally, it was highlighted that the auction proceedings had been stayed in a previous order, and all Earnest Money Deposits (EMDs) received had been refunded. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the remaining prayers of the applicant as infructuous and dismissed the application on the grounds of it being infructuous.

In a separate matter, another application was considered where the applicant expressed the intention to only pursue one prayer out of the three initially made. The Tribunal reserved its order after hearing the arguments and directed both parties to submit written synopses within a specified timeframe. Additionally, directions were given for the respondent to file a reply within a week for another application, emphasizing that no further adjournments would be granted on any grounds. The liquidator was also granted an extension of one week to file a reply in a related matter, with the case listed for further hearing on a specified date in September 2021.