9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 2B of IBBI (Liquidation) Regulations, 2016. The Appeal is accompanied by two interlocutory applications, being IA No 128/2025, praying for grant of stay of operation of the impugned order dated 11.03.2024, and IA No 127/2025, praying for condonation of delay of 224 days in re-filing the instant appeal. 2. In the Application IA(IBC)/1123/(CHE)/2023 thus preferred before Ld. Adjudicating Authority the appellant Ketan C Bagadia, had prayed for the following reliefs. A. Declare the Auction notice dated 20.05.2023 issued by the Respondent and consequent proceedings/ sale under the aforesaid Auction Notice as null and void B. Condone the delay in submitting the scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandated under Regulation 2B of IBBI ( Liquidation process) Regulations, 2016 and consequently , permit the Applicant to provide a scheme of Compromise under Section 230 of the Companies Act. C. Pass such further or other Orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstanced of the case and thus render justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant/Applicant is Ex- Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor, (CD), M/s Nexus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . NCLT which had emanated from the auction notice of 20.05.2023, and culminated in conduct of auction on 11.06.2023 and issue of sale certificate on 17.07.2023. As against the aforesaid dates, the application was preferred by the Appellant at a much-belated stage, and it is that during the pendency of the proceedings of IA(IBC)/1123(CHE)2023, he also sought to implead the auction purchaser, M/s. Chinar Steel Segment Centre Private Limited, as one of the parties to the proceeding, by filing IA/2375/2023, which was allowed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by the Order of 21.12.2023. 7. The Appeal being aggrieved as against the Impugned Order dated 11.03.2024 has been preferred by the Appellant before this Appellate Tribunal on 13.04.2024. The Registry had pointed out certain defects, which were not rectified in time and rather it was at a much-belated stage, that the appeal was refiled only on 23.12.2024 i.e., after a delay of 224 days. 8. This Appeal is accompanied by an Interlocutory Application, being IA No. 127/2025, seeking condonation of delay which has chanced in refiling the appeal of 224 days. If the application for condonation of delay in refiling is taken into considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuance of sale auction notice on 20.05.2023, it cannot be permitted to be de novo resettled on the basis of the allegation levelled by the Appellant pertaining to, that the order happens to be a non-reasoned order. This logic that the Order being non-reasoned is further, not acceptable by us for the reason being that the Tribunal did take into consideration the reply which was submitted, to explain the delay, which has chanced in submitting the scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the long drawn impact of the completion of the auction proceedings and the issuance of the sale certificate on 17.07.2023. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal, it is always not necessary for the Tribunal to elaborately deal with an issue owing to the subsequent development which had diluted the impact of remedy sought and particularly when the Appellant, had himself has shown diligence in filling the application for submitting the scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, in time. If there was a failure on that behalf, which as a logical corollary, ultimately evolved into the confirmation of sale, an elaborate discussion is not required to be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the immovable properties in terms of the advertisement on "As is where is, as is what is, whatever there is and without recourse basis". ii The auction notice does not mention anything about the plant, machinery available in the Pondicherry units. This gives the Applicant to apprehend that the plant and machinery available in the Pondicherry units were never valued. A perusal of the sale notice would reveal that the plant - situate at Nashik Maharastra was put for sale as a separate unit and the 3 Pondicherry units which are leasehold were put for sale along with other balance sheet assets. Balance sheet assets include plant and machinery situate in Pondicherry and other assets as well which were properly valued. Hence this contention does not have any basis. Copy of the balance sheet for the financial year ended on 31.03.2021 is submitted herewith as Annexure - R13. iii This Hon'ble Tribunal had given a specific direction in its order dated 09.09.2022 to sell the Company only as a going concern. In such case, the decision by the Respondent to undertake piecemeal sale is arbitrary and in any case, prior to the sale as a piecemeal basis, the Respondent is ought to get a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
