2024 (2) TMI 1260 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Qualified bidder or not - Application rejected holding that in third round of e-auction conducted by the Respondent property lot-III as is specified in e-auction notice dated 07th July, 2023 also stands sold - grievance of the Appellant is that in the process document, the time for payment was provided for 10 days whereas in the Schedule I, the time for payment is for 90 days. HELD THAT - Auction having already held with regard to lot-III, challenge to auction notice cannot be entertained. In so far as the submission of the Appellant that in the process document only 10 days time is allowed for making payment whereas regulation provides for 90 days, it is well settled that in event of conflict between a clause in the process document and the regulations, it is the regulation which will override. The question of payment arises only when auction is confirmed and when bidder is declared a successful bidder. It is not the case of the Appellant that Appellant has been declared as Successful Bidder and he has been asked to deposit within 10 days, Appellant having not participated in the auction, at his instance the auction notice has not rightly been quashed by the Adjudicating Authority. There is no merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order dated 12.12.2023 regarding Sale of Assets of Corporate Debtor, Appointment of Liquidator, E-Auction process, and adherence to law.

Summary:
The Appellant filed an Appeal seeking various reliefs, including quashing of Notices related to the Sale of Assets, appointment of a qualified Liquidator, reconducting the E-Auction, and maintaining status quo in the Liquidation Process. The Appellant claimed inadequate inspection time and non-refundable EMD demand, challenging the process document's clauses.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application, stating that the property in question was sold in the e-auction. The Appellant raised concerns about discrepancies in the payment timeline mentioned in the process document and Schedule I.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant did not participate in any auction despite being a qualified bidder. The Auction for lot-III had already taken place, making it unfeasible to challenge the auction notice. Regarding the payment timeline conflict, the regulation prevails over the process document, and payment is due only for successful bidders.

The Tribunal found no grounds to entertain the Appellant's submissions post-auction deadline, emphasizing that challenges to clauses like non-refundable EMD should have been raised earlier. Ultimately, the Appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.