9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced before us it is clear that the Liquidator allowed Mr. S. Ramalingam, the person who placed a wrong bid on 23.09.2020 and whose EMD the Liquidator had forfeited to participate in the auction held on 25.09.2020. The entire episode smacks of wrongdoings and mala fide on the conduct of the Liquidator in conducting the two auctions on 23.09.2020 and 25.09.2020 - The auction held on 25.09.2020 is hereby set aside. Attachment of property - HELD THAT:- The 1st Respondent has attached the property of the Corporate Debtor vide letter dated 03.02.2016 for the sales tax dues of Rs. 2,11,57,636/- pertaining to the Financial Years 2007-08 to 2014-15. The CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor was initiated on 03.12.2018. Thus, it could be seen that the attachment of the property of the Corporate Debtor by the 1st Respondent was made prior to CIRP period. Hence, the prayer of the Liquidator seeking removal of attachment on the property is not maintainable - Application dismissed. - IA/796/2021 in CP/661/CB/(IB)/2017, IA/206/2021 in CP/661/CB/(IB)/2017, IA/22/CHE/2021 in CP/661/CB/(IB)/2017 and IA/932/IB/2021 in CP/661/CB/(IB)/2017 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2022 - Sucharitha R., Member (J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AM and concluded on 23.09.2020 at 11:45:57 AM. 8. It is stated that the bids went up to Rs. 1,55,55,550/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Five Lakhs Fifty Five Thousands Five Hundred Fifty only), the bid was received from one Mr. G. Subramanian and lastly one Mr. S. Ramalingam made a bid amount of Rs. 15,65,55,550/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Fifty Five Thousands Five Hundred Fifty only). The auction ended at that point of time. 9. It is further stated that during the auction held on 23.09.2020 there were as many as 43 competitive bids. 10. The highest bidder Mr. S. Ramalingam post conclusion of the auction intimated to the Respondent that he has mistakenly quoted Rs. 15,65,55,550/- in place of Rs. 1,56,55,550/-. The said bidder thereafter requested for cancellation of the bid. 11. Later on, the said Mr. Ramalingam on 24.09.2020 wrote letter to the Respondent. The said writing by Mr. Ramalingam was on a stamp paper of Rs. 100 and is extracted below. (Page Nos. 40 41 of the Application):- As I participated in the above said E-Auction held on 23/09/2020. At the time of E auction was going on, I was supposed to type bid amount to be Rs. 1,56,55,550/-, but due t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der in the auction dated 23.09.2020 and who has placed the bid amount of Rs. 1,55,55,550/- on 23.09.2020 also participated in the auction held on 25.09.2020. In the auction held on 25.09.2020 the said Mr. G. Subramanian was declared as the highest bidder with the last bid amount of Rs. 1,10,55,550/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Fifty Five Thousands Five Hundred Fifty only). 17. The allegations of the Applicant in this IA are 1. The auction held on 25.09.2020 lacks transparency and there is an apparent fraud. 2. The value of the property got decreased by Rs. 45 lakhs within two days time. 3. The auction held on 25.09.2020 should have commenced from Rs. 1,55,55,550/- in place of upset price of Rs. 10,65,55,550/-. 4. No further e-auction sale notice was put by the Liquidator and the sole secured creditor was never informed. 5. 18. The Applicant submits that under the circumstances, they were not in a position to maximize the value of the assets and in a transparent manner and the same stands defeated. 19. Reply in the matter was filed on 25.01.2022, the Liquidator states that:- i. The Application is not maintainable due to non-joinder of essential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd conditions of e-auction are set out, para 11 of the terms and conditions is reproduced as under:- In case of default in payment, the property shall at the discretion of the Liquidator/secured creditor be sold to the 2nd highest bidder or resold and the defaulting purchaser shall not have any claim. Decision of the Liquidator/Secured Creditor will be final. 30. On perusal of the facts placed, it appears that the auction was not conducted in a transparent manner due to the following reasons:- i. The Ld. Liquidator could have very well sold the property to the second highest bidder Mr. G. Subramanian for Rs. 1,55,55,550/- at his bid placed at 11:56 AM as per the auction record. ii. No fresh e-auction notice was published by the Liquidator for holding e-auction on 25.09.2020. As late as 24.09.2020 the Liquidator was not clear what he is going to do which is apparent from the email written by the Liquidator to the Financial creditor as mentioned supra. iii. The upset price was set at the level of Rs. 1,06,55,550/-. This was the level at which the auction commenced on 23.09.2020 and was lower than the last valid bid amount which was Rs. 1,55,55,550/- which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Deeds (MODT) registered as Document No. 3767 of 2010, 6200 of 2010, 6811 of 2011, 5145 of 2012, 2144 of 2014 in respect to the Auction Property i.e., Factory Land and Building situated at Survey No. 118/1, 2, 3, Sethurapatti Road, Fathima Nagar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy - 620 012 admeasuring Land-5.04 Acres, Building - 62170 Sq.ft. and Drying yard - 11227 Sq.ft. d. Direct the 1st Respondent/Liquidator to pay the interest @ 12% p.a., for the sale consideration of Rs. 1,10,55,550/- paid by the Applicant to the 1st Respondent/Liquidator from 01.12.2020 till the date of registration and handing over of the auction property. e. Pass such further or other orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice. IA/22/2021 36. IA/206/Che/2021 was filed by the Liquidator seeking the following reliefs: a) To direct the Respondent to handover the original title deeds of the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant herein to register the Property in favour of the CD. b) To pass such other orders or further orders which may deem to be it and proper in the interest of justice. 37. In view of the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
