Bluechip Worldwide Yarn Private ... vs Liquidator Supreme Tex Mart Limited ...

Bluechip Worldwide Yarn Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. Liquidator, Supreme Tex Mart Ltd. Ravinder Kumar ...Respondents Goel & Ors. For Appellant: Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Mr. Shreyas Edupuganti, Advocates. For Respondents:

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

05.05.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order of the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh

dated 21.04.2022 by which I.A No. 536 of 2021 has been rejected.

3. The Appellant has filed a preliminary expression of interest to purchase

the Corporate Debtor as a going concern on 28.05.2021 through e-mail.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed Application I.A No. 536 of 2021 stating that he

is ready to purchase entire units of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern.

The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has rejected the

Applications along with the Application filed by the Appellant. There were two

other Applications i.e. I.A No. 227/2021 and I.A No. 228/2021 filed by the Ex-

Promoters which were also rejected. The Adjudicating Authority in the

impugned order has recorded that the Liquidator has made efforts to sell the 2

Corporate Debtor as a going concern in 2019, 2020 and 2021 but the sale

could not take place. Subsequently, with the permission of the Adjudicating

Authority, the private sale of different units was initiated and on 31.03.2021

Spinning Unit-1 was already sold under private sale. The Appellant had

expressed its interest to purchase the Corporate Debtor on 28.05.2021 i.e.

much after the sale of Unit-1 wanting sale as a going concern, which

Application is rejected.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant intends

to revive the entire units and unless he is given all the units no purpose will

be served in reviving the entire Corporate Debtor.

5. We have considered the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused

the record.

6. In para 4 of the order of the Adjudicating Authority, following

observations has been made while considering the I.A No. 536/2021 of the

Appellant:-

"4. The respondent has filed its reply vide Diary No.01292/01 dated 08.11.2021 wherein it has been stated that the Spinning Unit-1 has already been sold on 31.03.2021 by the Liquidator at a price of Rs.19.86 Crores. The three vehicles of the corporate debtor have already been sold in the private sale on different dates. The Liquidator has also made the efforts to sell the corporate debtor on 28.08.2019, 27.09.2019, 18.10.2019, 21.09.2020 as a going concern and on 31.10.2020, 24.12.2020 and 27.01.2021 in lots/ parcels."

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.490 of 2022 3

7. The Adjudicating Authority has noted that the Unit-1 was sold on

31.03.2021, although by subsequent order passed on 26.04.2021, Liquidator

was directed to maintain status quo with regard to the private sale in respect

of Spinning Unit-1 which order was passed in I.A No. 227 of 2021. By the

impugned order, I.A No. 227 of 2021 has already been rejected meaning

thereby direction to Liquidator to maintain status quo, has now been vacated.

The Appellant wants to purchase the entire units of the Corporate Debtor as

a going concern whereas Unit-1 was already sold on 31.03.2021. Without

there being any challenge to sale which took place on 31.03.2021, Appellant

could not have been permitted to bid all the units including Unit-1.

8. We are of the view that it is open for the Appellant to participate in the

auction and give his bid with regard to other part of the Corporate Debtor's

property which is still to be sold. However, till the sale dated 31.03.2021 of the

Spinning Unit-1 remains intact, the Appellant cannot be permitted to offer a

bid for Unit-1.

9. With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

Anjali/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.490 of 2022