9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s RLS Alloys Pvt. Ltd, puts a challenge to the Impugned Order dated 02.06.2022, as it has been passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in IA No.796/2021, in CP /661(IB)/CB/2017. As per the relief clause which has been modulated by the appellant in the appeal, there is a partial challenge given to the Impugned Order that is limited to the extent of the observation which has been made in para 30(vii) of the Judgment, whereby the directions has been issued to the IBBI to conduct detailed inspection regards the conduct of Liquidator and the records, pertaining to the Corporate Debtor in order to find out the irregularities in the process. The Appellant contends that the said observation made in para.30(vii) is wrong with eyes of law for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the bid of Mr. G. Subramanian, iv. Taking advantage of the entire scenario Mr. G. Subramanian was declared successful bidder on 25.09.2020 for a sum of Rs. 1,10,55,550/- in place of his own bid of Rs. 1,55,55,550/- on 23.09.2020 for the same property. The amount of the final bid was lower by nearly 45 lakh. v. From the record of auction placed 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be taken. Apart from it, during the course of argument it has been informed by the Ld. counsel for the Respondent, (not disclosed by the Appellant) that a bunch of Writ Petitions were preferred and they came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Writ Petition shown at SL.No.7, being Writ Petition(C) 7961/2023, and C(M) Application 30638/2023, 30639/2023, was preferred by the Appellant. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its Judgment of 10.04.2024, after taking into consideration the legal ratio laid down in Judgment referred in Para.8 of the Judgment dated 10.04.2024, has observed, that, the matter does not call for any interference with regards to the conduct of inspection/investigation which has not yet been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
