Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1421 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyLiquidation process - sale of property of Corporate Debtor - Whether the Liquidator has followed the prescribed procedure in disposing of the property of the Corporate Debtor under liquidation in compliance with IBC Code, the Companies Act and the relevant Rules and Regulations or not? Per Harish Chander Suri, Hon'ble Member (Technical) HELD THAT:- It would be noticed from the records that the Liquidator had obtained Valuation Report from Two different and independent Valuers and the asset in question was put to public auction after numerous announcements/e-auction for sale - The Liquidator has complied with all the requirements of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 whereby he had to prepare an asset memorandum and also to obtain valuation at least from two Valuers and by using an average thereof he had to decide the reserve price. The Liquidator has filed the 5th Progress Report which includes the asset memorandum and the Valuation Reports and the reserve price has also been correctly ascertained. We do not notice any irregularity in the sale process. If at all the applicants wanted to participate in the sale process or had any willingness or capability to purchase or had been claiming any right as a tenant or any pre-emptory right in relation thereto under any law they could have approached the appropriate forum of Court immediately on the publication of first expression of interest. They are delayed again at this stage when the sale has already been finalized by the Liquidator as per the Rules and Regulations applicable thereto and particularly when this Tribunal does not find any infirmity therein - The whole process of sale adopted by the Liquidator is correctly followed and cannot be allowed to be undone. The applications of the applicants need no consideration and they do not have any locus standi. The next question raised by the applicant is to the effect that there is no sanctioned building plan of the building under sale and that the whole building should be demolished as it cannot be stalled as per the law - HELD THAT:- This question is again untenable - The present building is stated to have been constructed in the year 1890 and must have been constructed with some approval or sanction from the then Nominated/Competent Authority. Till now no question had ever been raised as regards its construction being without any sanctioned plan. The applicants have no right to raise this issue particularly in their capacity as a tenant/occupants because they are having their offices in the same premises for a long time which presently they say is an unauthorized construction, that needs to be demolished. Per Jinan K.R., Member (Judicial) The property has been sold by way of competitive e-auction process in accordance with the invitation called for in compliance of the provisions of the code and regulations. Upon the alleged ground the process already initiated by the liquidator cannot be upset. Appeal dismissed.
|