9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sell a portion of the land as per market value to meet the demand; and (c) To grant sufficient time for the Applicant to make payment to the Financial Creditor and pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice 2. SR No. 944/2020 is also an Application filed by the Applicant namely, V.S. Palanivel, Share Holder/Ex-Managing Director of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Hotels Private Limited under Section 35 (d) and section 35 (f) r/w Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking following reliefs: (a) Set aside the sale deed dated 28.08.2020 registered as document No. 3551/2020 before the District Registrar, Tiruchirappalli; (b) Recall the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 05.05.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in MA No. 335 of 2020 in CP NO. 1140/IBC/CB/2018; (c) Direct the Respondents to pay damages to the Applicant herein to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for causing undue hardship and mental agony to the Applicant; and (d) Direct the Respondents to pay costs of the present proceedings 3. Since the issues involved in both the Application arise out of the same cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty to one M/s. KMC Speciality Hospital India Pvt. Ltd. Further, it was submitted that the RP informed the successful bidder is KMC Speciality Hospital (India) Pvt. Ltd., having office at No. 6, Royal Road, Cantonment, Trichy 620 001 and the bidding price is Rs. 29,55,96,375 (Rupees twenty Nine Crores fifty five lakhs ninety six thousand three hundred and seventy five only). 8. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the Applicant was making reasonable arrangements to clear off the dues to the Financial Creditor in a fair and reasonable manner and further it was contended that it is not necessary to sell the entire property of the Hotel to an extent of 67,136 sq.ft of land along with the building of 24,000 sq. ft. for a paltry sum of Rs. 25 crore and paying a sum of Rs. 7 crore to the Financial Creditor. Further it was submitted that the property can be divided in a certain way to meet the necessary demand of the Financial Creditor. 9. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent has vehemently denied all the averments and allegations made by the Applicant. It was submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent that CIRP in respect of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till pending and there has been no appearance entered on the part of the Respondent. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the possession of the immovable property is not handed over to the Liquidator and that the Liquidator collected the details from the Collectors office and that the License of the Bar is granted in favour of the Applicant herein. 12. Further, it was submitted that the Liquidator in accordance to Regulation 35 (2) of the IBBI (Liquidation process) Regulations, 2016 appointed two registered valuers the value of the asset in accordance to their report is as follows:- Name of the valuer Fair Value (Rs) Liquidation Value (Rs) Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Rs. 48,03,00,000 Rs.40,82,57,000 Mr. Baabu Rajendran Rs.48,48,00,000 Rs.38,00,00,000 Average Liquidation Value for Upset Price Rs.39,41,28,500 13. It was submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent that in accordance to the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the Respondent had issued a sale notice for the assets of the Corporate Debtors property on 19.11.2019 in Newspapers 'Dinamani' and 'Business standard' and the 1st E-auction was held on 25.11.2019, in w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of this Tribunal, the Liquidator has conducted e-auction on 23.12.2019 and also the Liquidator has executed the Sale Deed no. 3551/2020 before the District Registrar, Trichy. Further it was submitted that the 2nd Respondent/successful bidder has taken forceful physical possession of the property without informing the shareholders and stakeholders. It was submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that when the e-auction conducted on 23.12.2019 has been challenged before this Tribunal in MA/120/2020, the Sale Deed executed by the Liquidator is totally unsustainable. Further, it was submitted that the Sale Deed executed by the Liquidator was done malafide motive to usurp the property of the Corporate Debtor at an unbelievably cheaper price. 18. The 1st Respondent has filed its counter and submitted that the SR/944/2020 is not maintainable, since the first prayer is to set aside the sale deed dated 28.08.2020 and the Applicant has not challenged the first e-Auction sale notice, and has also not challenged the order of the liquidator for issuing second e-Auction sale notice. 19. Further the Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the prayer of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20, this Tribunal has extended the time period to deposit the remaining amount by the successful bidder/2nd Respondent, till the lockdown is lifted by the State/Central Government. Further, it is also seen that the 2nd Respondent has paid the balance sale consideration to the Liquidator on 28.08.2020 and in pursuance of the same a Sale Deed was executed in favour of the 2nd Respondent/successful bidder which is registered as Doc. No. 3551/2020 on the file of the Sub - Registrar, Trichy. Thus, when the entire sale process is complete and in the absence of any legal infirmities on the part of the Liquidator in conducting the e-auction process and also in view of the extension of timelines granted by this Tribunal in IA/335/2020 to the 2nd Respondent, the grounds raised by the Applicant are required need to be brushed aside. 23. Further, in relation to SR/944/2020 it is required to be noted that the Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sun Paper Mill Ltd. & Anr. In Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) No. 412/2019 dated 25.10.2020, had an occasion to deal with the power of Review and Recall of the orders passed by the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 677/2018 came to be dismissed on 14.03.2019, as against the said dismissal order, Comp App (AT)(Ins) No. 412/2019 was preferred by the Appellant before this Tribunal, which resulted in dismissal on 16.10.2019. 29. It is not in dispute that as against the judgment dated 16.10.2019 in Comp App (AT)(Ins) No. 412/2019 (in the matter of Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Paper Ltd. & Anr) passed by this "Appellate Tribunal" dismissing the Appeal, the Applicant/Appellant has not preferred an "Appeal" to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as per Section 62 of the I&B Code, 2016. Therefore, it is crystalline and clear that the judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed by this Tribunal in Comp. Appl. (AT)(Ins) No. 412/2019 between the parties inter se has become 'conclusive', 'final' and 'binding'. 30. A mere reading of the contents of IA No. 265/2021 in Comp App. (AT)(Ins) 412/2019 indicates latently and patently that although in the preamble it is mentioned as "Recall Application" yet it is only an "Application" praying for "Review" of the Order dated 16.10.2019 passed in Comp App (AT)(Ins) No. 412/2019 by this Tribunal, in stricto sense of the term. 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
