Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 397 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyValuation - Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - allegation that the Reserve price of ₹ 52.83 Crores has been kept at a dismal low - valuation is challenged on the ground that valuers have proceeded on the basis of wrong assumption that the land in question is Agricultural in nature, whereas, it is an industrial land - Whether the valuation and consequential Sale Notice is in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 35(3) & (4) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process)’ Regulation, 2016? HELD THAT:- Conversion of land from agriculture to any other use is governed by the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965. Rules 26 (D) states that there is condition to be fulfilled prior to conversion which includes, payment of development charges for External Development Works. Rule 26 (E) states that only upon the fulfillment of condition of Rule 26(D) permission will be granted for change of land use. Company under Liquidation received notice from the MCF dated 16.12.2002 in which it is mentioned that the permission for change of land use for setting up an industrial unit for land in question is allowed, in accordance with the condition of CLU –II Agreement executed on 24.10.1978 as per requirement of Rule 26(D) of Controlled Area Rule, 1965. In the notice there was a demand of ₹ 1,21,80,505/- for the amount of External Development Charges. The Company under Liquidation was required to pay this amount within 30 days. Admittedly, no such amount of EDC has been paid to the MCF. Therefore, as per Rules land use was not changed from agriculture to industrial - the land in question is Agricultural land though in past, it was used as industrial land however, as per Rules use of land was not changed. It cannot be said that valuers have determined the valuation of the land in question on the basis that use of land in question is Agricultural. It is also argued that as per the Circle Rate of the agriculture land the valuation of the land in question is amounting to ₹ 99 Crores, no such evidence is placed on record. However, while deciding earlier Application of the Appellant the Ld. Adjudicating Authority directed the Appellant to produce evidence in this regard before the Liquidator but, the Appellant was not able to produce any evidence and produced any bidder with better price. In the Sale Notice nothing is mentioned which prejudices the prudent bidder for bidding. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while deciding the objections granted an opportunity to the Appellant, to produce any person who is prepared to purchase the land in question at price higher than the Reserve price. He may also file his bid before the Liquidator before the closing date. In terms and conditions of the direction the Appellant was not able to produce any bidder with better price. The land in question was earlier put to e-auction during Liquidation in March, 2019 with Reserve price of ₹ 52.83 Crores and no bid was received even at a Reserve price and the Applicant had failed to identify any bidder/buyer whatsoever, inspite of opportunity given vide order dated 08.04.2019 passed in CA No. 501 (PB)/2019 - there is no substance in the objections raised in these Appeals, in regard to valuation of land and Sale Notice. Appeal dismissed.
|