9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shilpi Chowdhary and Mr. Harmish Shah, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 JUDGMENT DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 61 of the 'Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' (in short 'Code') against the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, in I.A.No. 297(AHM) of 2021 in CP (IB)No. 56 of 2019. 2. The Appellant has prayed the followings : i. To set aside the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A.No. 297(AHM) of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 56 of 2019: ii. Set aside the public announcement dated 30.04.2021 made by the Respondent No.1 for sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor. It is also not in dispute that the Resolution Professional Mr. Ravi Kapoor continuation as 'Liquidator' was also passed unanimously in the same meeting of the CoC. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority has passed an order on 02.07.2020 for initiation of 'Liquidation' of the 'Corporate Debtor' and also directed to Mr. Ravi Kapoor - Resolution Professional shall act as the 'Liquidator' for the purpose of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Adjudicating Authority based on the submission of the Liquidator allowed for re-auction and issue of a fresh public announcement thereby virtually allowing the Respondent No.2 to take over the auction whereas the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Appellant and instead conceded to the Application. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority ought to have ensured that the Appellant was heard, since its rights have now crystalized and any direction of conducting a fresh process would prejudice the rights of the appellant, along with causing a huge delay in the closure of the liquidation process as contemplated under the Code. It is submitted that there are plethora of judgments on the well-settled proposition that Courts should be slow in interfering with concluded auction sales and that simply because an unsuccessful bidder is offering a higher price at a later date, the Court cannot set aside the sale without their being any allegation of fraud, irregularity or discrimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate is issued, no successful bidder has right / title over the assets. The Respondent No.2 has also stated that the stakeholder committee has already agreed for e-auction as the offer of Respondent No.2 is Rs. 6.40 Crore which is Rs. 25 lakhs more than the last offer made by the Appellant. He has also presented the log report apart from the Appellant and is challenging if the Appellant bid was highest at 3.02 PM and that bid is to remain open as per auction term for only 5 minutes then how would log report be generated till 3.17 PM. This reflects itself that there was a technical snag in the system. The Respondent No.2 has also asserted that the 'page 132 of the Appeal Paper book' continuous called made by the Respondent No.2 to the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant was not satisfied with the answer given by the service provider and therefore talked in the office of liquidator and it was informed to the applicant to wait for some time and thereafter it was informed that as the time is over and therefore nothing can be happened. The copy of email communication with respondent is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E to this application. 10. The applicant submits that he was under the genuine belief that he was declared as successful auction purchaser when on portal the appellant was shown as No.1 bidder for Lot No.4. However when the sign/ mark of closed appeared, the applicant immediately talked with service provider for confirmation. The service provider Linkstar Infosys Private Limite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he advice of the consultation committee shall not be binding on the Liquidator and only when the Liquidator takes a decision different from the advice given by the consultation committee, he shall record the reasons for the same in writing. The Appellant has no vested right and has no sale certificate issued to him in terms of the e-auction. There appears has to be some technical glitches but the same is not support by the certificate of the administrator of the E-auction service provider of the agency involved. 10. This is a case where the 'Liquidator' has gone for e-auction based on the advice of the stakeholders consultation committee and this action is yet to be approved or disapproved by the Adjudicating Authority. This case is not ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
