Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2022) 05 NCLAT CK 0007

Bluechip Worldwide Yarn Pvt. Ltd vs Liquidator, Supreme Tex Mart Ltd. Ravinder Kumar Goel & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 5 May 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Shreesha Merla, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 490 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 571 words
1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2.

This  Appeal  has  been  filed  against  the  order  of  the  Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dated 21.04.2022 by which I.A No. 536 of 2021 has been rejected.

3.

The Appellant has filed a preliminary expression of interest to purchase the Corporate Debtor as a going concern on 28.05.2021 through e-mail. Thereafter, the Appellant filed Application I.A No. 536 of 2021 stating that he is ready to purchase entire units of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has rejected the Applications along with the Application filed by the Appellant. There were two other Applications i.e. I.A No. 227/2021 and I.A No. 228/2021 filed by the Ex-Promoters which were also rejected. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has recorded that the Liquidator has made efforts to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern in 2019, 2020 and 2021 but the sale could not take place. Subsequently, with the permission of the Adjudicating Authority, the private sale of different units was initiated and on 31.03.2021 Spinning Unit-1 was already sold under private sale. The Appellant  had expressed its interest to purchase the Corporate Debtor on 28.05.2021 i.e. much  after  the  sale  of  Unit-1  wanting  sale  as  a  going  concern,  which Application is rejected.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant intends to revive the entire units and unless he is given all the units no purpose will be served in reviving the entire Corporate Debtor.

5.

We have considered the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

6.

In  para  4  of  the  order  of  the  Adjudicating  Authority,  following observations has been made while considering the I.A No. 536/2021 of the Appellant:-

“4. The respondent has filed its reply vide Diary No.01292/01 dated 08.11.2021 wherein it has been stated that the Spinning Unit-1 has already been sold on 31.03.2021 by the Liquidator at a price of Rs.19.86 Crores. The three vehicles of the corporate debtor have already been sold in the private sale on different dates. The Liquidator has also made the efforts to sell the corporate debtor on 28.08.2019, 27.09.2019, 18.10.2019, 21.09.2020 as a going concern and on 31.10.2020, 24.12.2020 and 27.01.2021 in lots/ parcels.”

7.

The Adjudicating Authority has noted that the Unit-1 was sold on 31.03.2021, although by subsequent order passed on 26.04.2021, Liquidator was directed to maintain status quo with regard to the private sale in respect of Spinning Unit-1 which order was passed in I.A No. 227 of 2021. By the impugned order, I.A No. 227 of 2021 has already been rejected meaning thereby direction to Liquidator to maintain status quo, has now been vacated. The Appellant wants to purchase the entire units of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern whereas Unit-1 was already sold on 31.03.2021. Without there being any challenge to sale which took place on 31.03.2021, Appellant could not have been permitted to bid all the units including Unit-1.

8.

We are of the view that it is open for the Appellant to participate in the auction and give his bid with regard to other part of the Corporate Debtor's property which is still to be sold. However, till the sale dated 31.03.2021 of the Spinning Unit-1 remains intact, the Appellant cannot be permitted to offer a bid for Unit-1.

9.

With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.