9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efforts of the Liquidator to maximize the value of the asset and would moreover delay the proceedings as all and sundry would participate in the bidding process. Secondly, the record evidences that the email was resent on 09.12.2021 and even otherwise on 11.12.2021 at 7:25 PM, the Liquidator confirmed the eligibility of the Appellant in respect of one property based on his turnover and his net worth. Having participated in the bidding process, the conduct of the Appellant in turning around and stating that the eligibility criteria is erroneous, without challenging the said condition in any appropriate forum, is truly misconceived. This Appeal is partly allowed only modifying the amount of cost imposed from Rs.9Lakhs/- to Rs.2Lakhs/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Liquidator was appointed on 13.05.2021. On 28.11.2021, the Liquidator made a publication and issued the tender documents for auctioning the properties of the Corporate Debtor in Liquidation. On 06.12.2021, the Appellant submitted its bid documents to the Liquidator that both the properties under auction. Namely, the Industrial Land and Building situated at C-48, Sector 81 Noida and also at C-49, Sector 81 Noida. It is further contended that after going through the bid of the Appellant, the Liquidator sent an email rejecting their bid on the ground that the turnover of the Company should be Rs.20Crores/- for each Land and Building and that the net worth should be Rs.3Crores/-. It is submitted that a last opportunity was given to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he had failed; it was on the request of the Appellant that he was allowed to bid in one property, for which he had bid but again left proving their mala fide intent; the Appellant sought to cancel the bid by filing an Application before the Adjudicating Authority on the day of bid i.e., 14.12.2021; that the contention of the Appellant as per bid terms, the last date for asking any clarification was 08.12.2021, only is completely misconceived; that in paras 4.3(f), 4.19(c), 5.5(b), 7.2 and 11 of the bid terms, it is clearly mentioned that the Liquidator may amend/modify any of the terms of the bid even up to the date prior to online bidding to maximize the value of the stakeholders and the decision of the Liquidator is binding; that the em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 PM, the Liquidator confirmed the eligibility of the Appellant in respect of one property based on his turnover and his net worth. Having participated in the bidding process, the conduct of the Appellant in turning around and stating that the eligibility criteria is erroneous, without challenging the said condition in any appropriate forum, is truly misconceived. 6. We are also conscious of the fact that the Learned Adjudicating Authority has recorded in their Order that the Application preferred by the Appellant/Applicant was taken up as it was the last date for the bidding and spent two long hours in futility and vexed with the conduct of the Appellant herein for wasting the time and energy of the Court by indulging in these misconcei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
