TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2022. In the Swiss Challenge Auction, which took place on 06.04.2022, in which, the 2nd Respondent, was named as a Successful Bidder, and it satisfied the payment of Rs.44,64,00,000/-. Further, the purchase of the Corporate Debtor, as a Going Concern, by the 2nd Respondent, was allowed, by the Adjudicating Authority, through its Order, passed in IA(IBC)/1018/CHE/2022 in main CP/759/IB/CB/2018. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is brought to the fore that the New Management of the Corporate Debtor, had issued two communications dated 02.02.2023, whereby and whereunder, the 2nd Respondent had announced a Welcome Bonus, to all the employees of the Corporate Debtor. Also that, the Sale Proceeds, received in Full, from the 2nd Respondent, was distributed to the Stakeholders, as per the ingredients of Section 53 of the Code - Not resting with the above, this Tribunal, keeping in mind of a primordial fact that the Petitioner / Appellant, is not a Stakeholder, in the Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor, and in any event, has no substantial interest in the Corporate Debtor, comes to a cocksure conclusion that the Petitioner / Appellant, has no vested interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Parties , in Compliance of the Order , passed in MA/122/2021 in CP/759/IB/2018 dated 11.03.2022, which was not appraised , and taken into account , by the Adjudicating Authority ( Tribunal ). 5. Also that, it is the stand of the Petitioner / Appellant that the Offer of the Petitioner / Appellant , is more than the value offered by the 2nd Respondent , before the 1st Respondent , and that the Appellant s Proposal dated 08.11.2021, to purchase the Corporate Debtor / Company , as a Going Concern , is much beneficial to the Stakeholders Committee and Economy , at large. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant points out that, the Appellant , has preferred the Appeal , in respect of breach , manipulation and compliance , in regard to an Order in MA/122/2021 in CP/759/IB/2018 dated 11.03.2022 and by the Respondents action, there was a collusion, in between the Respondents , jointly and severally, which was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority . 7. The contention of the Petitioner / Appellant is that, before the 1st Respondent , as a proposed purchaser , for the Assets of the Corporate Debtor / Company (under Liq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a matter of fact, the Petitioner had not taken any steps to implead or object to the Sale of the Corporate Debtor , and since the Petitioner was not a Party to the Original Proceeding , before the Adjudicating Authority ( Tribunal ), he cannot maintain the present IA/124 of 2023 along with the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 33 of 2023. 13. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Liquidator contends that the Petitioner /Appellant , has no Locus Standi , to prefer IA No. 124 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 33 of 2023 and further, he is not a Stakeholder , in the Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor . That apart, just sending a Proposal , without pursuing the same, does not make the Petitioner / Appellant , as an Aggrieved Person . 14. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent points out that the Swiss Challenge Application , was preferred by the 1st Respondent in 2021, which was allowed on 11.03.2022. If at all, the Petitioner / Appellant, had suffered any grievance, as to the process of the Swiss Challenge or his vague Proposal furnished, he could have assailed the same, at a relevant point of time. However, to come out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent is that, towards the Acquisition of the Corporate Debtor , due consideration was paid by the 2nd Respondent and in fact, a sum of Rs.4,46,40,000/-, was paid on 19.05.2022 and the remaining sum of Rs.40,17,60,000/-, was paid on 05.07.2022 and the Full Payment of Consideration of Rs.44,64,00,000/-, was made. Besides this, that the Remitted Consideration , was dispersed , as per Section 53 of the I B Code, 2016. 20. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, refers to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Ravi Development v. Shree Krishna Prathisthan Ors., reported in (2009) 7 SCC at Page 462 at Spl Pg.: 463, wherein, it is observed and held as under: The State of Maharashtra, after due deliberations and study of the methodologies which were prevailing in the country for dealing with suo motu development proposals, decided to apply Swiss Challenge method to the proposal of the appellant Ravi Development. Further, Swiss Challenge method was being applied by the State Government only on a pilot basis. The Swiss Challenge method is transparent in as much as all the parties were well aware of the right of first refusal accorded to the originator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 30.03.2022, apprising him of the Swiss Challenge Bidding , and called upon him to take part in the said Bidding , which was made mention of by the Adjudicating Authority ( Tribunal ), vide Paragraph 8.2 of the Impugned Order . 25. It comes to be known that, when a Meeting , was convened on 06.04.2022, to receive and considered all Bids in the Swiss Challenge , the Petitioner / Appellant , had not attended the Meeting and also made no offer . 26. As regards the plea of the Petitioner / Appellant, that there was a serious violation and creation of records, manipulation of emails made by the 1st Respondent and that the same was not considered and was not appraised by the Adjudicating Authority ( Tribunal ) in its Order dated 11.03.2022 in MA No. 122 of 2021 in CP/759/IB/2018 and the later Order , in IA/IBC/1018/CHE/2022 dated 19.01.2023, this Tribunal , at this juncture, pertinently points out that the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.07.2003, in the matter of Central Bank of India v. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi Anr. (vide Appeal (Civil) No. 4634 of 2003, reported in India Kanoon), wherein, it is observed as follows: State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... older' / Litigant', who has no Tangible' / Substantial Defense', in regard to the implementation of the Resolution Plan'. 30. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is brought to the fore that the New Management of the Corporate Debtor, had issued two communications dated 02.02.2023, whereby and whereunder, the 2nd Respondent had announced a Welcome Bonus , to all the employees of the Corporate Debtor . Also that, the Sale Proceeds , received in Full , from the 2nd Respondent, was distributed to the Stakeholders , as per the ingredients of Section 53 of the Code. 31. Not resting with the above, this Tribunal , keeping in mind of a primordial fact that the Petitioner / Appellant , is not a Stakeholder , in the Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor , and in any event, has no substantial interest in the Corporate Debtor , comes to a cocksure conclusion that the Petitioner / Appellant , has no vested interest in the Corporate Debtor , and in view of the fact that the entire Management , was handed over to the 2nd Respondent and the entire Sale Proceeds , were distributed to the Stakeholders , the Leave sought for by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
