M/S Bindu Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs Ms Sonu Jain Liquidator Of Falcon ...

M/s Bindu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s Sonu Jain, Liquidator of Falcon Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, Advocate

For Respondent: Ms. Sonu Jain (Liquidator R1 & 3) Mr. Achal Gupta, Liquidator Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Mr. Abhijit Singh, Ms. Devika Chopra, Advocates for R-2

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

26.08.2021: We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, he submits that

the Appellant has already deposited the entire bid amount of Rs. 1 Cr. Thus, the

sale was completed, however, no sale certificate was issued in favour of the

Appellant and Ld. Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order allowed the

Application of Liquidator and directed to re-auction the property without giving

opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. Such order is against the IBC,

Regulations and natural of justice. Therefore, the impugned order is not

sustainable in law.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 658 of 2021 2

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 (Liquidator)

submits that there were two bidders who came into auction namely the Appellant

Bindu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Balaji. Shri Balaji could not take part into

auction due to technical glitches though both bidders have deposited the EMD

amount. On the date of auction, the Appellant Bindu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. given

quotation at Rs. 1 Cr. in the bid but another bidder Shri Balaji could not take

part into auction due to technical glitches however Shri Balaji intends to buy the

property at Rs. 1 Cr. 20 Lacs. The Financial Creditor insisted for re-auction so

that the property can be sold at higher price. Therefore, Liquidator filed an

Application before Adjudicating Authority for permitting re-auction.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 further submits that Ld.

Adjudicating Authority considered the facts of the case and clause 11 of schedule

I r/w Regulation 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation

Process) Regulations 2016 which provides for multiple rounds of auctions in the

interest of creditors allowed the liquidator's application and by the impugned

order directed to re-auction the property.

4. It is also submitted that in compliance of the impugned order, the re-

auction has taken place on 23rd August and the highest bidder ready to buy the

property at Rs. 2 Cr. 17 Lacs. The liquidator has not committed any irregularity.

Therefore, the Appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 658 of 2021 3

5. We have gone through the impugned order. We find no material

irregularity in the impugned order of re-auction of the property.

6. Applications filed along with the Appeal are disposed off.

The Appeal is dismissed summarily, however, no order as to costs.

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical) Sc/Md

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 658 of 2021