TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to him in terms of the e-auction. There appears has to be some technical glitches but the same is not support by the certificate of the administrator of the E-auction service provider of the agency involved. This is a case where the Liquidator has gone for e-auction based on the advice of the stakeholders consultation committee and this action is yet to be approved or disapproved by the Adjudicating Authority. This case is not right for review by the Appellate Tribunal as no order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant has appealed under Section 61 of the Code where the appeal can be filed only against the order of the Adjudicating Authority vide 61(1) of the Code. The Appellant has come in this appeal against the decision taken by the stakeholders consultation committee and Liquidator going ahead with the e-auction. The Adjudicating Authority is to appropriately consider the observations while disposing of the petition. The Appellant is to approach first to the Adjudicating Authority for redressal of their grievance for any irregularity and only thereafter can approach before this Appellate Tribunal under Section 61(1) of the Code - there are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the 4th CoC meeting was held on 07.01.2020, wherein CoC has decided to liquidate the Corporate Debtor as no EOI (Expression of Interest) was received in respect of Corporate Debtor and directed the RP to file an application for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. It is also not in dispute that the Resolution Professional Mr. Ravi Kapoor continuation as Liquidator was also passed unanimously in the same meeting of the CoC. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority has passed an order on 02.07.2020 for initiation of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and also directed to Mr. Ravi Kapoor Resolution Professional shall act as the Liquidator for the purpose of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Adjudicating Authority based on the submission of the Liquidator allowed for re-auction and issue of a fresh public announcement thereby virtually allowing the Respondent No.2 to take over the auction whereas the same is non-maintainable application. 7. The Appellant has submitted that as per the auction conducted on 12.04.2021 pursuant to the public announcement on 26.03.2021, where both the Appellant and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt no.l Liquidator made another public announcement on 30.4.2021 informing the public at large that the next auction is scheduled on 13.5.2021 and the last date for submission of EMD is 10.5.2021, even though the Appellant was the successful bidder for Lot No.4 (i.e. Plant and Machinery of Ceramic Manufacturing Unit situated at 445 and 451 of Dalpur, District-Sabarkantha, Gujarat) in the e-auction held on12.4.2021. 8. The Respondent No.2 has given lot of insistence for technical glitches in the auction process as at the last moment of auction and has attempted to prove that he could not upload the revised offer in the bidding process as there was technical glitches from around 3:00PM onwards. He has also presented his version immediately conveyed to the concerned IT agency involved in the auction process as well as Liquidator. He has also cited that the auction document Clauses 9 to 11 provides for transparent and visible highest bidder and cast a duty on Liquidator to ensure maximum realization from the sale of assets. He has also changed the existing bidding process that clause 2.11 of the Tender Document states that till sale certificate is issued, no successful bidder has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome time and thereafter it was informed that as the time is over and therefore nothing can be happened. The copy of email communication with respondent is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E to this application. 10. The applicant submits that he was under the genuine belief that he was declared as successful auction purchaser when on portal the appellant was shown as No.1 bidder for Lot No.4. However when the sign/ mark of closed appeared, the applicant immediately talked with service provider for confirmation. The service provider Linkstar Infosys Private Limited has not allowed the access to the applicant and with some ulterior motive or due to technical snag conducted the auction particular/y when the applicant was not allowed after immediate telephonic call. It is the duty of the service provider to give access to the applicant for -auction participation. The applicant was at present not knowing the exact status of the Lot NO.4. 11. The applicant is interested in the Lot No.4 and also willing to pay an amount of ₹ 6,40,00,000/-(Six Crore Forty Lacs only) immediately. It is submitted that when more price has been received than it will be in the benefit of al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
