AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 12.12.2023 in I.A. No. 4496/MB/2023 by which application, Appellant has prayed for following reliefs:
“a) "That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an order quashing and setting aside the Notices dated 7th July 2023 and 14th September 2023 pertaining to the Sale of Assets of the Corporate Debtor, the E-Auction, and any subsequent Sales carried out under the said Notices;
b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an order to appoint an alternative, qualified insolvency Professional as the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor, in lieu of the Respondent in this matter;
c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue a directive to reconduct the E-Auction and that the Terms and Conditions governing the Sale of the Corporate Debtor's Assets via E- Auction, as well as the Sale process itself, shall strictly adhere to the provisions of the law;
d) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue a directive to prohibit the Respondent from advancing with the E-Auction subsequent to the issuance of the Notice dated 07.07.2023 for the Sale of Corporate Debtor's Assets;
e) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue n direction to maintain the status quo in the Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor concerning the Sale of Corporate Debtor's Assets;
f) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grand interim and ad- interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses a), b), c), d), and e).
g) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
The Appellant’s case is that Appellant was declared qualified bidder however he could not participate since he was not given ample opportunity to inspect the property and there were certain clauses in the process document which was contrary to the regulations. He further submits that Appellant has asked for seven days period for inspection but was given only one hour time for inspection and non-refundable EMD was demanded.
The Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order has rejected the Application holding that in third round of e-auction conducted by the Respondent property lot-III as is specified in e-auction notice dated 07th July, 2023 also stands sold.
The grievance of the Appellant is that in the process document, the time for payment was provided for 10 days whereas in the Schedule I, the time for payment is for 90 days.
We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant and have perused the record.
Although Appellant was declared qualified bidder but he actually did not participate in any of the auction held in pursuance of the auction notice. In paragraph 10.4 of the Order, following finding has been returned by the
“10.4. In the Third Round of E-Auction conducted by the Respondent, the property Lot III as specified in the E-Auction notice dated 07 '07 '2023 stands sold.”
Auction having already held with regard to lot-III, challenge to auction notice cannot be entertained.
In so far as the submission of the Appellant that in the process document only 10 days time is allowed for making payment whereas regulation provides for 90 days, it is well settled that in event of conflict between a clause in the process document and the regulations, it is the regulation which will override. The question of payment arises only when auction is confirmed and when bidder is declared a successful bidder. It is not the case of the Appellant that Appellant has been declared as Successful Bidder and he has been asked to deposit within 10 days, Appellant having not participated in the auction, we are of the view that at his instance the auction notice has not rightly been quashed by the Adjudicating Authority.
In so far as the submission with regard to non-refundable EMD is demanded, it was open for the Appellant to challenge the clause of process document and obtain appropriate order from the Adjudicating Authority.
We are of the view that when date for auction is over and Appellant has not participated in the auction, we are not inclined to entertain above submissions in the present Appeal.
There is no merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.