9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffected by respondent i.e. State Bank of India in favour of auction purchaser. (b) Pass appropriate directions to the respondent i.e. State Bank of India to give effect for reversing this sale transaction (c) Pass any other order(s) that this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Learned Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties had dismissed the C.A- 2285/ 2020. 3. The Appellant, Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor M/s Alupan Composite Panels Private Limited was declared as NPA by State Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) on 28.06.2016. 4. Further, a Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to Corporate Debtor on 12.07.2017. 5. Further, the Corporate Debtor had entered into a one-time settlement of dues with the SBI vide letter dated 23.07.2019. 6. The Corporate Debtor send a letter to the State Bank of India (Respondent No.1) stating that Corporate Debtor is not in a position to accept the offer of the bank for OTS dated 28.06.2019. 7. Accordingly, the State Bank of India (Respondent No.1) inform to Corporate Debtor that in view of this, OTS settlement stood cancelled. 8. That on 17.08.2019 volunta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant while assailing the Impugned Order submitted that the Impugned Order completely ignores the provision of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act which contemplates about the documents which requires compulsory registration & Section 17(2) (xii) which provides exemption to issuance of sale letter to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by Civil or Revenue-Officer. (ii) Learned Counsel for the Appellant while relying on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of 'B. Arvind Kumar vs. Govt. of India and Others' reported in 2007 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 745:- "Re: Point (ii) 10. The plaintiff has produced the original registered sale certificate dated 29.8.1941 executed by the Official Receiver, Civil Station, Bangalore. The said deed certifies that Bhowrilal (father of plaintiff) was the highest bidder at an auction sale held on 22.08.1941, in respect of the right, title, interest of the insolvent Anraj Sankla, namely the leasehold right in the property described in the schedule to the certificate (suit property), that his bid of Rs. 8,350 was accepted and the sale was confirmed by the District Judge, Civil and Military Station, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is issued only when the sale become absolute. Purpose of registration is to pay only the stamp duty and registration charge and due to non registration of sale certificate, sale shall not be treated void and liable to set aside." (v) Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the contrary to the findings which was recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 47 of the Impugned Order (Supra) still dismissed the C.A. No. 2285/ 2020. (vi) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the SARFAESI Act and Rules are a complete code in itself, detailing and governing every step of the sale process. Under Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Rules, which provides for issuance of sale certificate by Authorized Officer of the bank, there is no provision for registration for completion of sale. (vii) Learned Counsel for the Appellant further contemplate that the Learned Adjudicating Authority was fail to appreciate that point the title of the property stands transferred to the Auction purchaser before the commencement of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code and would have no bearing on the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. (viii) Further it was submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation of sale, which may have taken place before commencement of moratorium and the title of the property in question no longer remains a property of the Corporate Debtor. (vi) So, based on these submissions, it was submitted that there is no merit in the Appeal and the Appeal be dismissed without costs. 21. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No.2/ Resolution Professional of CD (i) The Respondent No. 2 Mr. Ashok Kumar Dewan who was appointed as Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor in Reply Affidavit and Short Notes of Written Submissions and also during course of the arguments that the Appellant herein Mr. Nitin Garg expressed interest in submitting a resolution plan for the revival of the Corporate Debtor but the Respondent No. 2 informed the Committee of Creditors that no Earnest Money Deposit had been received from him and neither any concrete plan was submitted by him. (ii) Further, the Appellant herein informed that any Plan would be conditional to the factory of the Corporate Debtor at Haridwar and the same had already been sold by the State Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) much prior to the initiation of the CIRP process. (iii) The M/s Alucom Panels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority on 26.11.2020 and the Learned Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Application, reserved the Application for Orders. (vii) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 further submitted that in same 6th CoC Meeting held on 18.09.2020 resolved as follows: - "RESOLVED THAT pursuant to the provisions of Regulation 2B of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the consent of the members of the Committee of Creditors is hereby accorded for invocation of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 upon approval of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor (Alupan Composite Panels Private Limited) by the Hon'ble NCLT for 90 days and the RP fees to continue at the existing level for this period." (viii) It was further submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 reads as hereunder: - "That the Appellant still has an option to submit a scheme under Section 230 of the companies Act, 2013 before the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC), subject to being compliant under Section 29A of the Code. Therefore, an option to submit the Scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act read with Regulation 2B of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Debtor that in view of this, OTS settlement stood cancelled. (vi) That on 17.08.2019 voluntary declaration was made by Corporate Debtor to State Bank of India (Respondent No.1) for taking over physical possession of the Haridwar Factory on account of cancellation of OTS and sought a refund of the initial deposit given towards OTS and accordingly, the bank took the possession of the property on 27.08.2019. (vii) On 02.09.2019 the publication possession notice was duly published by the respondent bank in newspapers 'Business Standard' and 'Amar Ujala' under Rule 8(2) SARFAESI Act. (viii) On 04.09.2019 letter was issued from SBI/ Respondent No. 1 to Corporate Debtor directing the Corporate Debtor to not deal with the property in any manner as Bank would take action under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act. (ix) On 21.09.2019 Sale notice was published in the newspaper "Business Standard" (English) and "Business Standard" (Hindi) under Rule 8(6) SARFAESI Rules. (x) That on 24.10.2019 e-auction sale of the subject property was conducted by State Bank of India and M/s Alucom Panels Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.3) declared highest bidder. Sale confirmation issued to Respondent No. 3 unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of property was initiated under SARFAESI Act and also on 21.09.2019 Sale notice was published in the newspaper 'Business Standard' (English) and 'Business Standard' (Hindi) under Rule 8(6) of SARFAESI Rules. 28. On 24.10.2019 e-auction for sale of the subject property was conducted by STATE bank of India and M/s Alucom Panels Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) and was declared highest bidder. Sale confirmation issued to Respondent No. 3 under Rule 9(2), SARFAESI. 29. Further on 27.12.2019 the balance payment of 75% was made by the M/s Alucom Panels Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) under Rule 9(4), SARFAESI Rules. 30. Further, proceedings were initiated on 24.01.2020 under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and commencement of moratorium under Section 14 of the IB Code came into effect. 31. So, considering all these facts, we are of the view that there is no illegality in the Impugned Order passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority and Impugned Order is hereby affirmed. 32. There is no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant. 33. And accordingly the Appeal is dismissed without costs. 34. The Registry is directed to upload this Judgement on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
