Marinaindia Traexim Pvt. Ltd. vs Linkstar Infosys Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Ashok Bhushan, J.

These two Appeal(s) have been filed challenging two separate orders dated 02.12.2025 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Principal Bench dated 02.12.2025 rejecting IA No.2204 of 2025, IA No.2351 of 2025 and IA No.2534 of 2025 in CP(IB)-951(PB)/2020; and IA No.2202 of 2025, IA No.2353 of 2025 and IA No.2538 of 2025 in CP(IB)-950(PB/2020 respectively. By the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the IAs filed by the Appellant. Aggrieved by which order these Appeal(s) have been filed.

Facts and issued raised in these Appeal(s) are similar, it is sufficient to refer to facts and pleadings in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1927 of 2025 for deciding both the Appels. Order dated 02.12.2025 in IA No.2204 of 2025, which is challenged in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1927 of 2025 arises out of e-auction conducted on 01.05.2025 for assets belonging to Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan, the Bankrupt, whereas order dated 02.12.2025 passed in IA No.2202 of 2025, which is the subject matter of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1945 of 2025 arises out of e-auction conducted on 01.05.2025 of the assets belonging to Mr. Farah Khan, the Bankrupt.

Brief facts of the case in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1927 of 2025 are:

We have heard Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant(s); Shri Abhishek Anand, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2.

Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was allowed participation in e-auction and had submitted the bid and no technical glitch was faced till 03:52 PM and after that technical glitch was faced by the Appellant, who immediately contacted the Technical Support Team person named Mr. Vijay. The Appellant faced technical issues with respect to Lot No.1 of Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan and although the Appellant gave an increased bid at 04:17 PM, but was unable to submit the highest bid. Similarly with respect to Lot No.2 at 05:18 PM, the Appellant was unable to submit the highest bid due to technical failure on the auction website. The Appellant was diligently participating in the e-auction process, and it was due to technical glitch that he could not increase the bid as compared to the last bid received from the other bidder. The Applicant immediately filed an application praying for setting aside the e-auction. The Applicant has prayed in the application to obtain a Technical Report at the cost of the Applicant, which prayer was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. Conducting of e-auction on e-platform consists of several technical steps and Technical Report was essential to examine the grievance raised by the Appellant regarding the technical glitch encountered during the e-auction process. The Applicant in the application has submitted that immediately after he encountered technical glitch, he called the contact person given in the document. The various calls made and the answers given were already detailed in the application filed by the Appellant, which proves that the technical problem was faced by the Appellant and the Appellant contacted the concerned person immediately, but the grievance of the Appellant was not redressed, due to which the Appellant was unable to increase the bid amount with its competitor. The answer was received that everything is working fine. The screenshots and facts were already filed along with the application, which clearly proves the case of the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.253/2025 in Karix Mobile Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., where the Delhi High Court had directed the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, to nominate an Expert Committee comprising two Members to look into the issue of technical glitch on the portal of GeM at the relevant time. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the issues raised by the Appellant were to be examined by a Technical Expert and Adjudicating Authority committed error in not accepting the prayer for appointment of Technical Expert.

Shri Abhishek Anand, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 refuting the submissions of the Appellant submits that the grounds raised by the Appellant in the IAs filed before the Adjudicating Authority that it encountered technical glitch while participating in the e-auction held on 01.05.2025 from 02:00 PM to 04:00 PM is wholly incorrect and is not substantiated from the relevant records, which were placed by Respondent No.1 (the platform), who conducted the entire e-auction process. It is submitted that with regard to e-auction of Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan, although in Lot No.1 and Lot No.2, the Appellant continued to participate even after 04:00 PM, whereas the Appellant in the application came with a case that after 03:52 PM, the Appellant faced technical glitch. It is submitted that in Lot No.1 even after 03:52 PM the Appellant submitted five bids and the last bid was submitted at 04:16:10 PM. For Lot No.2, the Appellant after 03:52 PM had placed 19 bids, which are reflected in the relevant audit trail placed by Respondent No.1 before the Adjudicating Authority. Even last but one bid in both the Lots were submitted by the Appellant. The other bidder has increased its bid by Rs.10 lakhs and there being no further bid within five minutes by the Appellant, the bid of the other bidder was confirmed. Present is not a case, where it can be said that the Appellant faced any technical glitch and the case raised by the Appellant was found groundless by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority examined the entire material and record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the Appellant did not face any technical glitch, nor there is any material to prove any technical glitch. The fact that even after 03:52 PM, which is the time when the Appellant claimed to have faced the technical glitch, he submitted several bids in both the Lots, itself demolishes the case of the Appellant that he faced any technical glitch. The Adjudicating Authority being satisfied from the materials on record held that there was no question of appointing any Technical Expert for submitting a Report. Respondent No.1, which is the platform, which conducted the e-auction has already submitted a detailed Report in the reply. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed several videos and screenshots. In the reply, which was submitted by Respondent No.2 to the application – IA No.2204 of 2025, detailed observations were made with regard to videos. Referring to paragraph 47 of the reply of Respondent No.2, it is submitted that videos indicate that person is in a car and the noise of Honking and traffic noise can be heard. No glitch on the platform has been identified or alleged in the said video. It is submitted that auction was conducted in accordance with due process and the Appellant, who did not increase the bid within five minutes from the last bid, which was submitted by the other bidder, the Appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the auction, which has been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

We need to first notice the relevant pleadings, which have been made by the Appellant in its IA No.2204 of 2025 filed by the Appellant, questioning the e-auction held on 01.05.2025 for the assets belonging to Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan. The Appellant’s case is that after receiving the confirmation mail, the Appellant participated in the e-auction and the e-auction platform was functioning properly until approximately 03:52 PM. In the application – IA No.2204 of 2025, the Appellant has made following averments and pleadings in paragraphs 13 to 21:

In paragraph 22 of the application, the Appellant has given the time when the Applicant submitted his bid. The Applicant’s claim that last bid for Lot No.1 was submitted at 04:17 PM by the Applicant, increasing the bid by Rs.10 lakhs and making the bid to Rs.3,83 crores. The other bidder increased the bid by Rs.10 lakhs, making it to Rs.3.93 crores and the Applicant was unable to increase and submit the higher bid, due to glitch. With regard to Lot No.2, the Appellant submitted that it increased bid at 05:17 PM of Rs.10 lakhs, making the bid to Rs.6.78 crores, whereas at 05:18 PM, the Applicant was unable to submit the bid due to technical failure. The application filed by the Appellant was replied both by Linkstar Infosys Pvt. Ltd. (the Platform) as well as Respondent No.2. We also need to notice the prayers made in IA No.2204 of 2024, which are as follows:

In the reply filed by Respondent No.1, details of e-auction of Lot No.1 and Lot No.2 of bankruptcy process of Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan has been given, giving details of bids, date and time of both the bidders, namely – the Appellant and M/s Bahl Paper Mills Ltd. System generated Report of e-auction of Lot Nos.1 and 2 were brought on record. Telephonic conversation between Appellant and Respondent No.1 Company has also been filed with transcript at paragraph 9 of the reply. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, has come to a finding that case submitted by the Appellant that it faced technical glitch after 03:52 PM, is belied by the materials brought on record. The Appellant progressively increased the bid until 04:16 PM for Lot No.1 and 05:15 PM for Lot No.2, when the successful bidder placed the bid at 04:20:38 PM for Lot No.1 and at 05:14:54 PM for Lot No.2, the Applicant was required to increase his bid within stipulated five minutes window, which he failed to do. To increase the bid further or not is the choice of each bidder. All bidders are bound to exercise the option of higher bid within timeline and if not done the auction process will conclude on the highest bid. In paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority had made following observations:

In the impugned order in paragraph 16, the Adjudicating Authority has noticed the bid submitted by the Appellant for Lot No.1. After 03:52 PM, the Appellant submitted five bids and last bid submitted by the Appellant at 04:16 PM of Rs.3,83,74,051/- and at 04:20 PM Bahl Paper Mills Ltd. submitted a bid of Rs.3,93,74,051/- and the bid was not increased by the Appellant within five minutes window. With respect to Lot No.2 after 03:53 PM, the Appellant submitted 19 bids. The last bid submitted by the Appellant was at 05:12 PM of Rs.6,53,60,600/-. M/s Bahl Paper Mills Ltd. submitted bid at 05:13 PM of Rs.6,63,60,000/-. There being no increase in the bid within five minutes, the bid of Bahl Paper Mills Ltd. for Lot No.2 was confirmed. The observations and findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraphs 20 and 21 as noted above are based on relevant materials, which were brought on record. We have noticed the submission of the Appellant and the grounds taken by the Appellant in its IA No.2204 of 2025, which pleaded that after 03:52 PM, the Appellant faced several technical glitches. The Appellant also pleaded that in its application at paragraph 16 as noted above, the Appellant called one Mr. Vijay, the Technical Support person and the Appellant has given the details of calls. Paragraph 16, indicate that the first call was given at 01:58 PM and the last call was given at 04:10 PM. The Appellant was able to submit bids after the last call given by the Appellant in both the Lots, i.e. Lot No.1 and Lot No.2. In Lot No.1 at 04:16 PM, the Appellant submitted his last bid and in Lot No.2 at 05:12 PM, the Appellant submitted his last bid. Had the Appellant encountered any technical glitch, after submission of last bid at 04:16 PM in Lot No.1 and in Lot No.2 at 05:12 PM, there ought to have been immediate complaint or call for assistance. There is no proof of any contemporaneous complaint/ call or email pointing about the glitch. Furthermore, when the Appellant was participating with the other bidder in both the Lots, the Appellant submitted last but one bid after 04:00 PM in both the Lots and after the last bid submitted by the Appellant, the other bidder has increased its bid by Rs.10 lakhs and Appellant failed to increase its bid after five minutes and after expiry of five minutes, the auction stood confirmed in favour of the other bidder. When the Appellant has been submitting competitive bids, till the very end of auction, the theory setup by the Appellant that he faced technical glitch in submitting the bids, is belied from the materials on record. The allegations made by the Appellant in his applications and materials brought on record did not raise any ground for setting aside the e-auction.

Shri Abhishek Anand, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has also submitted that although the Appellant has filed three applications before the Adjudicating Authority, claiming various reliefs, but the Appeal(s) have been filed only against one order passed in one IA. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1927 of 2025 only order which is challenged is IA No.2204 of 2025 and other two orders passed in two IAs, have not been challenged. Be that as it may, the Appellant having challenged the order passed in IA No.2204 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1927 of 2025 and IA No.2202 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1945 of 2025, it is clearly open for the Appellant to raise all his submissions. Other two IAs, which were subsequently filed by the Appellant were only consequential and have no bearing on the consideration and decision of the Appeal.

Coming to the judgment of the Delhi High Court relied by the Appellant in Writ Petition (C) No.253/2025 in Karix Mobile Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., where High Court has directed the Director, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi to nominate an Expert Committee comprising two Members to look into the issue of technical glitch on the portal of GeM at the relevant time. Although, direction was issued in the above case to nominate an Expert Committee to render its opinion, which opinion was also submitted and ultimately the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. In the above case, learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the petitioner had immediately raised the ticket with Respondent No.2/ GeM portal for resolution of the glitch it faced. However, GeM portal team did not assist the petitioner. In the present case, from the own showing of the Appellant, he has called the support person, and even after his last call, the Appellant submitted several bids, which materials are on record and after submission of the last bid by the other bidder, there is no contemporaneous material to indicate that the Appellant has filed any communication and raised his bid within five minutes period, which was available for increasing the bid.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) 1429/2018 – L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. to support his submission that there being technical glitch, the Technical Experts were required to be appointed, who would have substantiated the case setup by the Appellant. We need to notice the judgment of the Delhi High Court on which reliance has been placed. The facts of the case have been pleaded in Paragraph-2 of the judgment. The above was a case where tender was invited by ONGC. The bid was to be uploaded on the platform provided by the ONGC. The methodology of the tender has been noticed in Paragraph-5 of the judgment, which is as follows:

The Petitioner has submitted its bid and uploaded all the documents at 13:58:43 hrs., i.e. before 02:00 P.M. on 05.02.2018, which was the last date of submission of the bid. The Appellant’s case was that he pressed the submit button, but the status of the bid was not changed from ‘saved’ to ‘submitted’ and the Appellant was held not qualified having not submitted the bid. In the above context, the Writ Petition was filed. The Delhi High Court with the consent of the parties appointed Technical Expert Agency, i.e. FSL, Rohini, Delhi. Two teams were constituted to submit a report with respect to the Appellant as well as ONGC. After examining the report, the Delhi High Court found that after uploading of the documents at 13:58:43 hrs., there was further activities noticed in the system of the Appellant, which clearly meant that the Appellant had pressed the submit button. Relying on the said report, the Writ Petition was allowed.

The judgment of the Delhi High Court relied by the Appellant was on its own facts, where the Appellant successfully proved that after uploading the bid documents, it had pressed the submit button, which was proved from the report of the Technical Expert. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Appellant had fully participated in the bid and submitted the bid even after period of two hours was over. The Appellant submitted his last but one bid also. Last bid being of the Successful Auction Purchaser and there was no further bid submitted by the Appellant within five minutes, the bid of another Auction Purchaser was accepted as successful bid. Thus, in the present case, there was no Technical Glitch as alleged by the Appellant. We have already noticed submissions of the parties and facts in foregoing paragraphs of the judgment and have come to the conclusion that the Appellant failed to prove any technical glitch, since he has successfully participated in auction of both the Lots and has given several bids, which have been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority and by us. The judgment of the Delhi High Court, thus, in no manner supports the case of the Appellant.

From the facts brought on record, the Adjudicating Authority has carefully examined the relevant materials and the materials which were produced by the e-platform, which has conducted the auction, which indicate that the Appellant was continuously participating in the bid till the last but one bid and hence, the submission of the Appellant that he faced technical glitch is unsubstantiated. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the IAs filed by the Appellant for quashing the e-auction held on 01.05.2025 with respect to assets of Waseem Ahmad Khan and Farah Khan. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned order passed by Adjudicating Authority in these Appeal(s) warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

In result, both the Appeal(s) are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.