9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where is basis and it is nowhere mentioned that the conversion fees for the land in question to Industrial Use is Rs.110Crs./- The Liquidator has brought to the Notice of this Bench that the land in question was earlier put to e-Auction during Liquidation in March 2019 with the Reserve Price of Rs.52.83Crs./- and no bid was received even at that price and that the Applicant had failed to identify any bidder despite several opportunities being given. The same was also recorded by this Tribunal in the initial round of Litigation. The contention of the Learned Sr. Counsel that the Affidavit filed by MCF before the Hon ble Supreme Court showing that the land was of Industrial Use , is not relevant at this point of time and therefore the subject land has to be revalued, is untenable as the Hon ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Civil Appeal and upheld the Order of this Tribunal, whereunder this Tribunal has held that the Appellant was not able to produce any evidence before the Liquidator that the land was of Industrial Use . It is also an admitted fact that the Appellant did not pay the External Development Charges and there is an outstanding amount due with respect to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant. The relevant portion is reproduced as hereunder: The final conclusion held in this order is as follows: 40. The base price of ₹52.58Crores is reserve price of the property which is for higher than the circle rate of the agricultural land and the value is much more in demonetisation of development potential of the property. The property was earlier put to e-auction during liquidation in March, 2019 with a reserve price of ₹52.83Crore and no bid was received even at the reserve price and the applicant had failed to identify any bidder/buyer whatsoever in spite of the opportunity given vide order dated 08.04.2019 passed in CA No. 501(PB)/2019. 41. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the highest bidder stated that the whole amount of the highest bid stand deposited and the transfer deed is to be executed by the liquidator. 42. as a sequal to the above discussion, we issue following directions:- (a) the application is dismissed with cost of 250,000 payable to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. b) the liquidator is directed to accept the highest bid as the amount stand already deposited and proceed with the liquidation process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r this management filed a response with the notice stating that land is agriculture in nature. Thereafter, in the 5th Consultative meeting of the Stakeholders on 14.03.2019, Mr. Sanjay Ghambir stated that the land and building of the CD was an agricultural Land at the time of purchase and was put to industrial use by the CD, he has also further stated that his family took over shareholding of Forging Pvt Ltd. some in 1994 (when the CD was under purview of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and that no records of the CD prior to the time of of their acquisition were available with them as the same had been lost in fire. He further mentioned that the subject land building of CD was in use for an industrial activity both prior to and after take-over of the CD by his family. He further mentioned that there may be a notice regarding charges payable for change of land use received sometime in the past and a demand of about ₹8.5Crore was probably raised and not deposited, and that no documents are available with him in respect thereof. He also further mentioned that the charges for conversion of the subject land to commercial use are over ₹110Crore. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was paid or not, but now it has come for second round of application on the same issue. In view thereof, we hereby dismiss this company application by imposing ₹1,00,000 costs to be paid to the corporate debtor company within one month thereof. (Emphasis Supplied) 5. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar appearing on behalf of the Appellant strenuously argued that the ex-Director of the Corporate Debtor , Mr Karan Gambhir had earlier changed the Valuation Reports filed by R1 and also the Sale Notice published by R1 in CA 1079/2019, which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 12.04.2019 on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the land has been converted to Industrial Use . Separate Appeals were preferred by Mr. Karan Gambhir and the Appellant herein before this Tribunal which vide Order dated 17.08.2020, upheld the Order of the Adjudicating Authority only on account of lack of evidence stating that the land is agricultural in nature, even though it is used for industrial purposes, however, the use of land was not changed. A Civil Appeal was then preferred by Mr. Karan Gambhir and the Appellant herein before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce the Order of this Tribunal in DD Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sajeve Bhushan Deora, Liquidator for Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1430/2019, whereunder 1079/2019 was challenged. This Tribunal while dismissing the Appeal observed as follows: 40. We have considered the submissions. As we have held that there is no defect in the valuation reports and reports are as per the Rules. In the Sale Notice dated 15.05.2019 all material facts are disclosed. In the Sale Notice terms and conditions are mentioned condition No. 12 13 are as under:- 12. After payment of the entire sale consideration, the sale Certificate containing due disclosure of the fact that the sale is AS IS WHERE IS AS IS WHAT IS AND WHATEVER THERE IS BASIS will be issued in the name of the successful bidder only and will not be issued in any other name. 13. Bidder to confirm the permitted use of subject land and building and costs and charges payable in respect thereof, including those for industrial use in the past. The demands of providers of utilities and service at the subject land and building may too be confirmed from appropriate authorities/ agencies. All demands, whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first round of litigation has not determined the nature of the land in question but has only decided the objections in regard to the valuation of land in question and that of the Sale of Notice, and observed that the Sale Notice was in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 35(3) (4) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. This Tribunal has categorically held that there is no defect in the Valuation Report and that as per the Rules in the Sale Notice, it is mentioned that sale is on an as is where is basis and it is nowhere mentioned that the conversion fees for the land in question to Industrial Use is Rs.110Crs./- The Liquidator has brought to the Notice of this Bench that the land in question was earlier put to e-Auction during Liquidation in March 2019 with the Reserve Price of Rs.52.83Crs./- and no bid was received even at that price and that the Applicant had failed to identify any bidder despite several opportunities being given. The same was also recorded by this Tribunal in the initial round of Litigation. 12. Be that as it may, it is also pertinent to mention that in the Affidavit filed by the Commissioner, MCF before the Hon ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. to pay EDC amounting to Rs. 1,21,80,505/- @ Rs. 13,78,275/- per gross acre applicable at that time within a period of 30days. The outstanding external development charges is being calculated on the basis of memo no. 1928 dated 16.02.2022 with prevailing rate of interest. As per calculation the total outstanding EDC is Rs. 239630131/- (Twenty Three Crore Ninety Six Lakh Thirty Thousand One Hundred Thirty One rupees) interest calculated upto 31.12.2020. 13. The contention of the Learned Sr. Counsel that the Affidavit filed by MCF before the Hon ble Supreme Court showing that the land was of Industrial Use , is not relevant at this point of time and therefore the subject land has to be revalued, is untenable as the Hon ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Civil Appeal and upheld the Order of this Tribunal, whereunder this Tribunal has held that the Appellant was not able to produce any evidence before the Liquidator that the land was of Industrial Use . It is also an admitted fact that the Appellant did not pay the External Development Charges and there is an outstanding amount due with respect to the same. 14. This issue having attained finality in two rounds of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
