9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required. Further, it does not required registration under Section 17(2) (xii) of the Registration Act - Initiation of the proceedings for public auction under SARFAESI Act was completed on 30.12.2019. In the instant case also proceedings for sale 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 - 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. There is no illegality in the Impugned Order passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority and Impugned Order is hereby affirmed - Appeal dismissed. - COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INSOLVENCY) NO. 930 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2021 - [Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial) And [Ms. Shreesha Merla] M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 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. 11. On 21.09.2019 Sale notice was published in the newspaper Business Standard (English) and Business Standard (Hindi) under Rule 8(6) SARFAESI Rules. 12. 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 under Rule 9(2), SARFAESI. 13. Further on 24.10.2019 the DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal), Delhi in SA No. 211/2019 directed that the sale shall be subject to Section 52 of the TP Act (Transfer of Property Act) and no stay was granted by the DRT. 14. That 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. 15. That on 30.12.2019 Sale Certificate was issued in favour of Respondent No. 3 by State Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) under Rule 9(6), SARFAESI Rules. 16. On 24.01.2020 in IB-3196/ND/2019 M/s Keshav Enterprises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required. In this case, the sale certificate itself was registered, though such a sale certificate issued by a court or an officer authorized by the court, does not require registration. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a civil or revenue officer does not fall under the category of non testamentary documents which require registration under sub-section (b) and (c) of section 17(1) of the said Act. We therefore hold that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the sale certificate did not convey any right, title or interest to plaintiff s father for want of a registered deed of transfer. (iii) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the aforesaid position of law of the facts in the instant case, it is admitted that the same was confirmed in favour of auction purchaser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Impugned Order cannot be sustained and fit to be set aside and the Appeal be allowed. 20. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 1/ State Bank of India (i) In his Reply Affidavit and during the course of the arguments, the Corporate Debtor after having refused the bank s offer for OTS and after voluntarily giving possession of the subject property, instituted S.A. No. 211/2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT-II) against the e-auction sale notice issued by the Respondent Bank. Vide order dated 24.10.2019, the Hon ble DRT-II was pleased to direct that the sale was subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. (ii) There was no stay granted by the Hon ble DRT on the proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated and conducted by the Respondent Bank and accordingly, the sale of the subject property stood completed and concluded much before initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. (iii) It was submitted that the Sale under SARFAESI Act was conducted by the Respondent bank and much before the imposition of moratorium under Section 14 of the IB Code and the sale certificate had been issued in favour of the auction purchaser much prior to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 since no resolution plan had been received from the two interested resolution applicants, including the Appellant herein. (v) It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 that the CoC in 6th Meeting resolved as follows: - RESOLVED THAT pursuant to the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; the consent of the members of the Committee of Creditors ( CoC ) is hereby accorded for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, M/s Alupan Composite Panels Private Limited ( Corporate Debtor ) and continuation of the Resolution Professional, Mr. Ashok Kumar Dewan as the Liquidator at a consolidated professional fee of ₹ 25,00,000/- pluis GST and out of pocket expenses on an actual basis for the entire liquidator process of the Corporate Debtor. The said consolidated fees be shared by the Liquidator and ARCK Resolution Professionals LLP (IPE) equally @ ₹ 12,50,000/- each. RESOLVED FURTHER THAT pursuant to the provisions of Regulation 39B of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and other applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the consent of the members of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt under Section 33(2) of the Code seeking Liquidating of the Corporate Debtor. (ix) Based on these submissions it was submitted that there is no merit in the instant appeal and is fit to be dismissed. 22. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 3 - M/s Alucom Panels Private Limited. (i) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3- M/s Alucom Panels Private Limited in this Reply Affidavit submitted that in the instant case Respondent No. 1/ State Bank of India took possession of the secured assets on 27.08.2019 and conducted e-auction on 24.10.2019, and declared Respondent No. 3 M/s Alucom Panels Private Limited as Successful Bidder and Sale Certificate issued on 30.12.2019 in favour of the Respondent No. 3 and thereafter transferred the possession of the secured asset on 31.12.2019. (ii) It was submitted that the entire process of sale of the secured asset, under SARFAESI Act 2002 and was completed on 31.12.2019 and under Section 9 of IBC 2016 was admitted in the instant case much prior to 24.01.2020. (iii) So, Learned Adjudicating Authority taking note of these facts and have rightly rejected the instant application stating that there is no merit in this Appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 the balance payment of 75% was made by the M/s Alucom Panels Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) under Rule 9(4), SARFAESI Rules. (xiii) That on 30.12.2019 Sale Certificate was issued in favour of Respondent No. 3 by State Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) under Rule 9(6), SARFAESI Rules. (xiv) On 24.01.2020 in IB-3196/ND/2019 M/s Keshav Enterprises vs. Alupan Composite Panels Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of IBC, 2016 filed by the Applicant. Therein the application under Section 9 was admitted and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar was appointed as IRP. (xv) That an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 2285/ 2020 in Company Petition (IB) No. 3196/ND/2019 was filed by the Appellant Nitin Garg, Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor on 10.06.2020. (xvi) For the relief mentioned in Para-1 of this Appeal (Supra) the Learned Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi Bench under Order dated 04.09.2020 dismissed the application bearing No. I.A. No. 2285/ 2020 after hearing the Parties. 24. In view of the admitted facts of this case and further in view of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
