9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s connection, this Tribunal points out that I B Code, 2016 is an inbuilt and self-contained code. Speed is the Essence / Gist of the Code. Moreover, the Provisions of I B Code, 2016 are summary in nature, and they are not adversarial in character. Also, that the Appellant / Applicant is bound, as per the relevant clause of the Letter of Intent concerning the Bid. No wonder, the I B Code, 2016 stipulates the time limit that the period, in which the entire CIRP process is to be completed, with a view to ensure maximisation of value of Assets of the Corporate Debtor and to avoid depreciation value, of the property concerned. This Tribunal keeping in mind that the Appellant had defaulted in fulfilling the tenor and spirit of Letter of Intent for the second time, and also, the observations, made by the Members of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee, in their 14th Meeting held on 21.09.2022 and on a cumulative consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present Case, in a Holistic Manner, the plea of the Appellant, in seeking an extension of time, in application towards the payment of balance purchase consideration, the said request cannot be acceded to by this Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessful bidder followed by telephonic intimation. He, however, did not participate in the Meeting for reasons best known to him. Hence plea of no opportunity is denied. 13. On the basis of Bid Process Agreement, it is clear that in respect of Category B, Parcel 4, Asset there is timeline prescribed in the Updated Process Document, viz., date of registration, date of auction, date of submission, etc. Such timelines can be extended at the discretion of the Liquidator. However, the timeline which cannot be extended is payment of the sale consideration by the successful bidder. Payment of the final amount by the bidder should be within 90 (ninety) days with interest and 30 days without interest from T. The only benefit that the successful bidder gets is 30 days without interest. The prescribed period for payment of the full consideration is 90 days with interest from the date of LoI(s). No further extension is contemplated in the Bid Process Document. Therefore, the plea for extension cannot be countenanced by the nature of Bid Document and the terms contained therein. 14. Paragraph 59, sub-clause (iii) of the United Process Document dated 08.04.2022 also makes it clear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad Bench, Court No.II) had placed the Corporate Debtor under the Liquidation Process and appointed the Respondent as the Liquidator . 5. It comes to be known that the Respondent / Liquidator had issued a Process Document dated 08.04.2022, in respect of an E-Auction Process (Amended and Supplemented from time to time). In regard to the Public Announcement and Process Document , the Appellant / Petitioner had furnished a Bid , in the E-Auction process, for the following Parcel as per Annexure II of the Process Document with Financial Proposal of INR 136,11,30,698/- and the same runs as under: - Category B (Parcel 4) Assets of Phase III of the Corporate Debtor in parcel as mentioned in Schedule C of the Process Document. Parcel 4 Assets of Phase III of the Corporate Debtor in parcel as mentioned in Schedule C of the Process Document amended as on April 08,2022. 6. In the E-Auction Process , the Petitioner was declared as the Successful Bidder in respect of the Parcel, in question : - Category B (Parcel 4) Assets of Phase III of the Corporate Debtor in parcel as mentioned in Schedule C of the Process Document. Parcel 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant was not able to disburse the whole purchase consideration and, accordingly, it made a request to the Respondent / Liquidator to grant the Appellant , some additional time of 4 to 5 months , approximately, to disburse the purchase consideration . 11. Since the 90 Days period from the Receipt of Letter of Intent dated 21.06.2022, was coming to an end on 18.09.2022, the Appellant / Petitioner had prayed for an extension of time to the Adjudicating Authority . (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II), being the Successful Bidder for payment of balance consideration . 12. Before the the Adjudicating Authority . (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II), the Respondent / Liquidator had filed a Reply / Response , inter alia, stating that the Sale of Parcel 4 of Assets of the Corporate Debtor was informed by the Terms and Conditions , mentioned in the Process Document dated 08.04.2022 and the Letter of Intent dated 21.06.2022. Further, the economic hardship in performance of a Contract , does not by itself render, a Contract impossible to perform. That apart, the parties to the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was observed by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee , in their 14th Meeting held on 21.09.2022. Added further, the Appellant / Petitioner till date had not remitted any amount to the Respondent / Liquidator in relation to the incurring of all expenses , pertaining to the maintenance and preservation of Phase III Assets from the date of Declaration of the Successful Bidder in the Process Document , as per the Terms . 16. The crucial aspect is that the period of 15 Months, available under I B Code, 2016 and Regulations were already exhausted and the process was undergoing because of the Order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority , (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II) extending the Liquidation Process , for a further period of six months . Therefore, the Respondent / Liquidator prays for dismissal of the IA (IBC)/972/2022 in CP (IB) No.678/7/HDB/2018. 17. Assailing the correctness, validity and propriety of the Impugned Order dated 12.10.2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority , (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II), the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Tribunal , is that the Adjudicating Authority , (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II) should have considered that the Appellant has filed the Subject Application , praying for an extension of time before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II) for 90 days time , with a Bonafide request, to extend the time, to pay the balance purchase consideration , to complete the sale by exhausting all avenues , including approaching the Bank for Funding . 24. Per contra, it is a submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent / Caveator that the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II) had rightly passed an impugned order in dismissing the IA (IBC)/972/2022 in CP (IB) No.678/7/HDB/2018 by assailing cogent, coherent and just reasons for dismissing the Application and this Tribunal , as an Appellant Authority may not interfere with the impugned order of dismissing the Application, passed by the Adjudicating Authority , (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Court No.II). 25. It is an evident from the terms of Paragraph 3.2 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
