Mandip Singh vs Mahesh Bansal Liquidator Of Satnam Agri ...

For Appellant: Ms. Jyoti Sareen and Mr. Nahush Jain, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Pathik Choudhury for Liquidator. Mr. Mahesh Bansal (Liquidator, in- person) Mr. Pulkit Deora, Adv. for R-2 in IA 188/2022.

JUDGMENT

DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1. The appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 61 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'Code') against the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 1 of 46 impugned order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the National Company

Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Adjudicating Authority) in I.A No.

389 of 2020 in CP(IB) No.124/Chd/PB/2018. The Appellant vide

above IA has sought for setting e-auction sale noticed 24.08.2020

and process memorandum issued by the Liquidator, fixing the sale

of assets of CD on single day by three modes at highly inadequate

reserve price and seeking direction to the Liquidator to sale the CD

as a going concern only at first instance and for further direction to

provide the Appellant the copy of valuation report submitted by two

valuers appointed by Liquidator etc.

2. The Appellant has filed the present appeal on being aggrieved with

the order of the Adjudicating Authority and has prayed for setting

aside and quashing the impugned order dated 09.12.2020 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority as also setting aside the mode and

manner of sale, through which, the Liquidator had issued, the E-

Auction Sale notice and Process Memorandum dated 24.08.2020

etc.

3. The brief background of the case is given hereunder:

a. The Insolvency Petition was filed by the Corporate Debtor (CD)

under Section 10 of the Code and the Petition was admitted vide

order dated 05.10.2018 and Shri Y.P.Singhal was appointed as

Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 2 of 46 b. The CoC in its meeting held on 12.11.2018, proposed to replace

the IRP with the Respondent i.e. Mr. Mahesh Bansal as

Resolution Professional (RP) and vide order dated 28.11.2018,

the Respondent was appointed as RP by the Adjudicating

Authority.

c. No resolution Plan was received by the RP, during the CIRP, the

Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 01.11.2019, passed the

order under Section 33(1)(a) of the Code, for liquidator of the CD

and Mahesh Bansal, Respondent was appointed as a Liquidator

in connection with the Liquidation Process of the CD.

4. The Ld Counsel for the Appellant has submitted the followings:

a. Sale notice dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure A-14) and dated

16.12.2020 (Annexure A-25) fixing the sale of assets of CD by

three different modes on single day is violative of Regulation 32

and 32(A)(1) of LP Regulations

b. Non-disclosure of valuation reports to the appellant being

Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (SCC) member and other

members of SCC is violative of Regulation 31-A(1) and 31-A(5) of

LP Regulations.

c. The reserve price fixed of the assets of the CD is highly

inadequate.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 3 of 46 d. Reserve price of the assets of the CD fixed in violation of LP

Regulations.

e. It was also stated by the Appellant that the Adjudicating

Authority erred an error in rejecting the said IA filed by the

Appellant on the ground that CIRP was initiated on 05.10.2018

and object of maximization of value of CD will be defeated if

liquidation of CD is delayed. The Adjudicating Authority failed to

appreciate that the Liquidation order of the CD was passed on

01.11.2018 and since March, 2020 there was lockdown due to

Covid-19 pandemic and IBBI has already excluded the period of

lockdown.

f. The Appellant further went to say that the value of the assets of

the CD has been depreciated by the conduct of the

Respondent/RP himself who failed to adopt proper procedure laid

under Liquidation Process Regulation 2016 and has acted in

utter violation of Regulation 32, Regulation 32-A(1), Regulation

31-A(5) and Regulation 33-(1) read with Schedule I Clause (4) of

LP Regulations, 2016.

g. It was also stated by the Appellant that matter has not become

infructuous by non-receiving of bids in pursuance of sale notice

dated 16.12.2020 as the case involves challenge to mode and

manner of sale and fixing of inadequate Reserve price by

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 4 of 46 Liquidator in violation of statutory IBBI (Liquidation Process)

Regulations.

h. During the course of hearing, the Appellant has further stated

that the issue of locus standi of the Appellant cannot be

challenged by the Liquidator at this stage as the Appellant is the

Ex-Director of the CD and the Liquidator has not challenged his

locus standi at this stage of Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 389

of 2020 filed by the Appellant. If the Liquidator has not

challenged the same at the Adjudicating Authority level, then

naturally it cannot be challenged at the Appellate Level.

i. The Appellant has stated that he has filed an IA No. 389 of 2020

before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of the Code

being Ex-Director/Shareholder and guarantor of the CD and

Member of SCC.

j. They have also raised the issue that the process memorandum

dated 24.08.2020 has included machinery worth Rs. 75 lakhs

given in the list of the missing assets (Annexure A-9 page 153 of

the Convenience Compilation) but the reserve price of the

collective sale of assets remained the same at Rs. 10.25 Crore

which cast a shadow of doubt on the Authority of valuation report

and support the arguments raised by the Appellant that the

valuers have not done physical verification that assets of the CD

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 5 of 46 before submitting valuation report in utter violation of Regulation

35(3) of Liquidation Process Regulation. It was also stated by the

Appellant that the Liquidator was supposed to get fresh valuation

done after physical verification of plant and machinery for the

best interest of the CD. The challenge is that the Liquidator has

conducted the Liquidation Process in utter violation of

Liquidation Process Regulation resulting in Sale of plant and

machinery of CD at highly inadequate reserve price which is in

strict violation of Liquidation Process Regulation. Publishing the

sale notice giving three modes of sale disclosing three reserve

prices in single sale notice, the Liquidator has in fact made

mockering of Liquidation Process Regulation and has ensured

that nobody bids for first lot for which reserve price is highest, as

nobody in his right business sense would purchase assets at a

higher value as a going concern at 10a.m, if option in the same

sale notice is given to the bidder to purchase the same assets in

parcels at a lower value at 1p.m onwards.

5. The Adjudicating Authority, while passing the impugned order dated

09.12.2020 has observed at para 3, 4, 8, 9 & 10:

Para 3 ...... The said IA was disposed of by this

Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 22.07.2020

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 6 of 46 and the operative portion of the said order reads as

under:-

"3. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that no

bids have been received by the Liquidator in response

to the impugned sale notice dated 02.07.2020, no

further orders are required to be passed in the instant

application. We permit the applicant to make an

appropriate representation to the Liquidator indicating

his objections within one week and the Liquidator may

consider the same while issuing fresh sale notice in

respect of the Corporate Debtor. However, it is made

clear that the Liquidator is free to act in accordance

with the Code, Regulations and applicable laws. IA No.

258/2020 stands disposed of accordingly."

4. Thereafter, the Liquidator issued the impugned

Annexure A11 e-auction sale notice. Challenging the

same, the instant IA has been filed. On 04.09.2020,

this Adjudicating Authority stayed the impugned e-

auction sale notice (Annexure A-11) dated 09.09.2020

and the said order is subsisting till date.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the

applicant's reliance on Regulation 35 of the IBBI (IRP

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 7 of 46 for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 is

misconceived as the Regulation applicable to the facts

of the case is Regulation 35(2) and (3) of the IBBI

(Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. No identical

clause of providing/sharing information with the COC

is available under Regulation 35 of the Liquidation

Process Regulations. The learned counsel submits that

on this ground also the contention of the applicant that

the fixation of reserve price is not correct, cannot be

accepted.

9. It is seen that the CIRP was admitted against the

corporate debtor way back on 05.10.2018. Time is the

essence of the IBC. The Object of maximization of the

value of the assets of the corporate debtor will be

defeated, if the resolution/liquidation of the corporate

debtor is delayed. This has already been proved in the

instant case also. The applicant having participated in

the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee meeting

cannot question the fixation of the reserve price,

subsequently. The applicant is simply trying to delay

the process of liquidation, without any valid ground.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 8 of 46

10. Hence, in these circumstances and for the

aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the

instant IA and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The

interim order granted on 04.09.2020 is vacated."

6. The Respondent/Liquidator has raised multiple objections and the

same are enumerated here under:

a. The Appellant has no locus standi to challenge the reserve Price

fixed for the sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor or seek a copy

of the Valuation Reports. That the grounds raised by the

Appellant in the Appeal assailing the impugned order dated

09.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority,

Chandigarh Bench on the grounds that the Respondent has not

fixed the reserve price for the Corporate Debtor and its assets in

accordance with Regulations 35 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process)

Regulations, 2016 are misconceived, misleading and frivolous

with the sole intention to delay and cause hindrance in the

Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor. Further, the

Appellant herein has no locus standi to challenge the decision of

the Liquidator to fix the reserve price for the sale of assets or seek

a copy of the valuation reports conducted by the

registered valuers appointed by the Respondent. That the Appeal

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 9 of 46 filed by the Appellant herein deserves to be dismissed with

exemplary costs for reasons specified herein below:

Firstly, it is relevant to refer to the Regulation 35 of the Insolvency

and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process

for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, the Resolution

Professional shall provide the fair and liquidation

value computed by the registered valuers to only members of the

Committee of Creditors i.e. the Financial Creditors, only on

receiving an undertaking to maintain confidentiality of the fair

value and the Liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor. The

provisions of Regulation 35 of CIRP Regulations is reproduced

herein under for reference:

"35. Fair value and Liquidation value.

(1) Fair value and liquidation value shall be determined

in the following manner:-

(a) the two registered valuers appointed under

regulation 27 shall submit to the resolution professional

an estimate of the fair value and of the liquidation value

computed in accordance with internationally accepted

valuation standards, after physical verification of the

inventory and fixed assets of the corporate debtor;

(b) if in the opinion of the resolution professional, the

two estimates of a value are significantly different, he

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 10 of 46 may appoint another registered valuer who shall

submit an estimate of the value computed in the same

manner; and

(c) the average of the two closest estimates of a value

shall be considered the fair value or the liquidation

value, as the case may be.

(2) After the receipt of resolution plans in accordance

with the Code and these regulations, the resolution

professional shall provide the fair value and the

liquidation value to every member of the committee in

electronic form, on receiving an undertaking from the

member to the effect that such member shall maintain

confidentiality of the fair value and the liquidation

value and shall not use such values to cause an undue

gain or undue loss to itself or any other person and

comply with the requirements under sub-section (2) of

section 29:

(3) The resolution professional and registered valuers

shall maintain confidentiality of the fair value and the

liquidation value."

Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that during the Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process, as per Regulation 35(2) of the CIRP

Regulations, 2016 after receipt of resolution plans in accordance

with the Code and these regulations, the resolution professional

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 11 of 46 shall provide the fair value and the liquidation value to every

member of the committee in electronic form, on receiving an

undertaking from the member to the effect that such member shall

maintain confidentiality of the fair value and the liquidation value

and shall not use such values to cause an undue gain or undue loss

to itself or any other person and comply with the requirements

under sub-section(2) of section 29. Furthermore, Regulation

35(3) casts a duty upon the resolution professional and registered

valuers to maintain confidentiality of the fair value and the

liquidation value.

b. Now coming to the similar Regulation provided under the

Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 it is relevant to refer to

Regulation 35 of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016

which is reproduced below:

"35. Valuation of assets intended to be sold.

(1)Where the valuation has been conducted under

regulation 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board

of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate

Persons) Regulations, 2016 or regulation 34 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Fast Track

Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)

Regulations, 2017, as the case may be, the liquidator

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 12 of 46 shall consider the average of the estimates of the

values arrived under those provisions for the purposes

of valuations under these regulations.

(2) [In cases not covered under sub-regulation (1) or

where the liquidator is of the opinion that fresh

valuation is required under the circumstances, he shall

within seven days] of the liquidation commencement

date, appoint two registered valuers to determine the

realisable value of the assets or businesses under

clauses (a) to (f) of regulation 32 of the corporate

debtor:

Provided that the following persons shall not be

appointed as registered valuers, namely: -

(a) a relative of the liquidator;

(b) a related party of the corporate debtor;

(c) an auditor of the corporate debtor at any time during

the five years preceding the insolvency commencement

date; or

(d) a partner or director of the insolvency professional

entity of which the liquidator is a partner or director.

(3) The Registered Valuers appointed under sub-

regulation (2) shall independently submit to the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 13 of 46 liquidator the estimates of realisable value of the

assets or businesses, as the case may be, computed

in accordance with the Companies (Registered Valuers

and Valuation) Rules, 2017, after physical verification

of the assets of the corporate debtor.

(4) The average of two estimates received under sub-

regulation (3) shall be taken as the value of the assets

or businesses"

c. The Respondent has submitted that in accordance with

Regulation 35(2) of the Liquidation Process Regulations

appointed two registered valuers to determine the

realizable value of the assets or business of the Corporate Debtor

under clauses (a) to (1) of Regulation 32.

d. Regulation 34(2)(a) & (b) of the Liquidation Process Regulations,

2016 mandates that the asset memorandum shall provide the

following details in respect of the assets which are intended to be

realized by way of sale, which includes (a) value of the asset,

valued in accordance with Regulation 35 and (bb) value of the

assets or business(es) under clauses (b) to (f) of regulation 32,

valued in accordance with regulation 35, if intended to be sold

under those clauses. Regulation 34 is reproduced herein under

for ease of reference:

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 14 of 46

"34. Asset memorandum.

(1) On forming the liquidation estate under section 36, the

liquidator shall prepare an asset memorandum in

accordance with this Regulation within seventy-five days

from the liquidation commencement date.

(2) The asset memorandum shall provide the following

details in respect of the assets which are intended to be

realized by way of sale

(a)value of the asset, valued in accordance with Regulation

35;

(b) value of the assets or business(s) under clauses (b) to

(f) of regulation 32, valued in accordance with regulation

35, if intended to be sold under those clauses;]

(c) intended manner of sale in accordance with Regulation

32, and reasons for the same;

(d) the intended mode of sale and reasons for the same in

accordance with Regulation 33;

(e) expected amount of realization from sale; and

(f) any other information that may be relevant for the sale

of the asset.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 15 of 46 (3) The asset memorandum shall provide the following

details in respect of each of the assets other than those

referred to in sub-regulation (2)-

(a) value of the asset;

(b) intended manner and mode of realization, and reasons

for the same;

(c) expected amount of realization; and

(d) any other information that may be relevant for the

realization of the asset.

(4) The liquidator shall file the asset memorandum along

with the preliminary report to the Adjudicating Authority.

(5) The asset memorandum shall not be accessible to any

person during the course of liquidation, unless permitted

by the Adjudicating Authority."

Regulation 34(5) of the Liquidation Process Regulations,

2016 clearly prohibits that the asset memorandum shall

not be accessible to any person during the course of

liquidation, unless permitted by the Adjudicating

Authority.

e. Purpose of valuation reports is not res integra and have been

settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also pertinent to

mention here that the Appellant has further no Locus Standi

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 16 of 46 to challenge the valuation carried out under Regulation 35 of

the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016. In this regard, it is

worthwhile to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Seamless

Limited vs Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors on 22.01.2020

wherein it was held as under:

"26. No provision in the Code or Regulations has been

brought to our notice under which the bid of any

Resolution Applicant has to match liquidation value

arrived at in the manner provided in Clause 35 of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)

Regulations, 2016. This point has been dealt with in

the case of Essar Steel (supra). We have quoted

above the relevant passages from this judgment.

27. It appears to us that the object behind prescribing

such valuation process is to assist the CoC to take

decision on a resolution plan properly. Once, a

resolution plan is approved by the CoC, the statutory

mandate on the Adjudicating Authority under Section

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 17 of 46 31(1) of the Code is to ascertain that a resolution plan

meets the requirement of sub-sections (2) and (4)

of Section 30 thereof. We, per se, do not find any

breach of the said provisions in the order of the

Adjudicating Authority in approving the resolution

plan.

28. The Appellate Authority has, in our opinion,

proceeded on equitable perception rather than

commercial wisdom. On the face of it, release of

assets at a value 20% below its liquidation value

arrived at by the valuers seems inequitable. Here, we

feel the Court ought to cede ground to the commercial

wisdom of the creditors rather than assess the

resolution plan on the basis of quantitative analysis.

Such is the scheme of the Code. Section 31(1) of the

Code lays down in clear terms that for final approval

of a resolution plan, the Adjudicating Authority has

to be satisfied that the requirement of sub-section (2)

of Section 30 of the Code has been complied with. The

proviso to Section 31(1) of the Code stipulates the

other point on which an Adjudicating Authority has

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 18 of 46 to be satisfied. That factor is that the resolution plan

has provisions for its implementation. The scope of

interference by the Adjudicating Authority in limited

judicial review has been laid down in the case of

Essar Steel (supra), the relevant passage (para 54) of

which we have reproduced in earlier part of this

judgment. The case of MSL in their appeal is that they

want to run the company and infuse more funds. In

such circumstances, we do not think the Appellate

Authority ought to have interfered with the order of

the Adjudicating Authority in directing the successful

Resolution Applicant to enhance their fund inflow

upfront."

f. That above mentioned judgement was affirmed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India v. Accord

Life Spec Private Limited through director & ors. vide

judgement dated 28.02.2020, wherein it was held as under:

"The impugned judgment dated 13.11.2019 has remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority after a finding that under Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code together with the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 19 of 46 principle of maximization of assets of the corporate debtor, a resolution plan which is lesser than liquidation value cannot be accepted."

As a matter of law, this judgment has to be set aside in view of our recent judgment dated 22.01.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 4242 of 2019 entitled Maharashtra Seamless Limited vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors. in which this Court has categorically held as under:

"26. No provision in the Code or Regulations has been brought to our notice under which the bid of arry Resolution Appellant has to match liquidation value arrived at in the manner provided in Clause 35 of the Insolvency and Bankrupicy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. This point 2 has been dealt with in the case of Essar Steel (supra)."

g. It is settled position of law that question of valuation carried out

by two independent Registered Valuers duly registered with IBBI

cannot be challenged by the Appellant as the same being a

question of fact is normally not interfered by Courts. It is relevant

to refer to judgment dated 03.12.1999 passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Duncans Industries Limited

v. State of U.P. &Ors (AIR 2000 SC 355) wherein it was held as

under:

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 20 of 46

"The question of valuation is basically a question of

fact and this Court is normally reluctant to interfere

with the finding on such a question of fact if it is based

on relevant material on record. The main objection of

the appellant in regard to the valuation arrived at by

the authorities is that the Collector originally

constituted an Enquiry Committee consisting of the

Assistant Inspector General (Registration), General

Manager, District Industries Centre, Sub-Registrar

and the Tehsildar. After the report was submitted by

the Sub-Committee for the reasons of its own, the

Collector reconstituted the said Enquiry Committee by

substituting Additional City Magistrate in place of

Sub-Registrar. This substitution of the Enquiry

Committee, according to the appellant, is without

authority of law. We are unable to accept this

contention. Constitution of an Enquiry Committee by

the Collector is for the purpose of finding out the true

market value of the property conveyed under the

Deed. In this process, the Collector has every

authority in law to take assistance from such source

as is available, even if it amounts to constituting or

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 21 of 46 reconstituting more than one Committee. That apart,

the appellant has not been able to establish any

prejudice that is caused to it by reconstitution of the

Expert/Enquiry Committee. We have perused that

part of the report of the Collector in which he has

discussed in extenso the various materials that were

available before the Committee and also the report of

the valuers appointed for the purpose of finding out

the value of the plant and machinery. These valuers

are technical persons who have while valuing the

plant and machinery taken into consideration all

aspects of valuation including the life of the plant and

machinery. The valuations made both by the Enquiry

Committee as well as the valuers are mostly based on

the documents produced by the appellant itself.

Hence, we cannot accept the argument that the

valuation accepted by the Collector and confirmed by

the revisional authority is either not based on any

material or a finding arrived at arbitrarily. Once we

are convinced that the method adopted by the

authorities for the purpose of valuation is based on

relevant materials then this Court will not interfere

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 22 of 46 with such a finding of fact. That apart, as observed

above, even the counsel for the appellant before the

High Court did not seriously challenge the valuation

and as emphasised by the High Court, rightly so.

Therefore, we do not find any force in the last

contention of the appellant also."

h. The Appellant through its Appeal has raised objections with

regard to the reserve price of the Corporate Debtor being below

the valuations conducted by the State Bank of India on

08.02.2016 being 32 months before the CIRP Commencement

date has no relevance as in terms of the provisions of the

Code as the Resolution Professional and Liquidator are

required to conduct valuation from the valuers registered with

IBBI. It is relevant to note that in the first SCC meeting it was

State Bank of India only that recommended the reserve price

be fixed as Rs. 10.25 crores. The Appellant is further relying

on the book value of the plant and machinery of the Corporate

Debtor as per the audited financial statements for the year

2017-18. It is submitted that the book value of the asset of the

Corporate Debtor has no bearing in the Liquidation Process, as

in terms of Regulation 35 of the Liquidation Process

Regulations, the valuation is conducted by qualified

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 23 of 46 professionals registered with IBBI to determine the 'realisable

value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. As per the

Appellant the Reserve Price of Rs. 10.25 crores for the

collective sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor is less and

should be higher. However, it must be noted that admittedly

there were no bids submitted by any interested bidder at the

reserve price of Rs. 10.25 crores for collective sale of assets of

the Corporate debtor in pursuance to the 2nd sale notice. This

fact was duly recorded by this Adjudicating Authority as well

in its order dated 22.07.2020. It is further submitted there was

no prospective bidder willing to participate in the e-auction in

terms of sale notice dated 16.12.2020 issued by the

Respondent at the same Reserve Price of Rs. 10.25 crores. The

Respondent hereby prays to this Adjudicating Authority to

direct the appellant to state on an affidavit as to how the

Appellant was able to obtain the confidential valuation reports

in respect of the valuation which the State Bank of India

had got conducted.

(9) The consultation committee shall advise the liquidator, by a

vote of not less than sixty-six percent of the representatives of

the consultation committee, present and voting.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 24 of 46 (10) The advice of the consultation committee shall not be

binding on the liquidator: Provided that where the liquidator

takes a decision different from the advice given by the

consultation committee, he shall record the reasons for the same

in writing

32.Sale of Assets, etc

The liquidator may sell-

(a) an asset on a standalone basis;

(b) the assets in a slump sale;

(c) a set of assets collectively;

(d) the assets in parcels;

(e) the corporate debtor as a going concern; or

(f) the business(s) of the corporate debtor as a going concern:

Provided that where an asset is subject to security interest, it

shall not be sold under any of the clauses (a) to (f) unless the

security interest therein has been relinquished to the liquidation

estate

[32A. Sale as a going concern.

(1) Where the committee of creditors has recommended sale

under clause (e) or (f) of regulation 32 or where the liquidator is

of the opinion that sale under clause (e) or (f) of regulation 32

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 25 of 46 shall maximise the value of the corporate debtor, he shall

endeavour to first sell under the said clauses.

(2) For the purpose of sale under sub-regulation (1), the group

of assets and liabilities of the corporate debtor, as identified by

the committee of creditors under sub-regulation (2) of regulation

39C of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)

Regulations, 2016 shall be sold as a going concern.

(3) Where the committee of creditors has not identified the assets

and liabilities under subregulation (2) of regulation 39C of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency

Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016,

the liquidator shall identify and group the assets and liabilities

to be sold as a going concern, in consultation with the

consultation committee.

(4) If the liquidator is unable to sell the corporate debtor or its

business under clause (e) or (f) of regulation 32 within ninety

days from the liquidation commencement date, he shall proceed

to sell the assets of the corporate debtor under clauses (a) to (d)

of regulation 32."

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 26 of 46

i. It is pertinent to mention here that there was a delay on part of

the secured financial creditors in relinquishing their security

interest to the Liquidation Estate and to enable the Respondent

to form the Liquidation Estate as per Section 36 of the Code. Due

to the delay, the Respondent was unable to sell the Corporate

Debtor as a going concern within a period of 90 days from the

Liquidation Commencement Date in terms of 32A(4) of the

Liquidation Process Regulations. That the proviso for Regulation

21 stipulates that where an asset is subject to security interest,

it shall not be sold under any clauses (a) to (1) unless security

interest has been relinquished to the liquidation estate. That

in terms of Regulation 32A(4), if the Liquidator is unable to sell

Corporate Debtor as a going concern within 90 days then the

Liquidator may endeavor to sell the assets as per Regulation

32(a) to (d).

j. The Respondent at the First meeting of Stakeholders

Consultation Committee convened on 25.02.2020 discussed the

delay on part of the Secured Financial Creditors in relinquishing

their security interest and consequent delay to form Liquidation

Estate in terms of Section 36 of the Code. That the Respondent

discussed the way forward in the SCC meeting wherein

upon discussions and deliberations, the members of the SCC

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 27 of 46 decided to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor collectively at

the Reserve Price of Rs. 10.25 crores. It is further pertinent to

mention that the Appellant was duly present in the First SCC

meeting wherein the Reserve price of Rs. 10.25 crores were

recommended by the State Bank of India. Further, the

Respondent shared the first and second minutes of the SCC

meeting with the Appellant and there were no objections raised

by the Appellant in the first meeting or the minutes of second

meeting of the SCC. Accordingly, the Respondent issued the first

sale notice dated 08.05.2020 to sell the assets of the Corporate

Debtor collectively at a reserve price of Rs. 10.25 crores in

accordance with valuation conducted as per Regulation 35 and

decision of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee, which was

withdrawn due to the objections raised by the Appellant and due

to the restrictions in view of the pandemic of Covid - 19.

k. Thereafter, the Respondent issued the second sale notice dated

02.07.2020 which was issued in accordance with valuation

conducted as per Regulation 35 and the decision of the SCC to

sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor collectively at a reserve

price of Rs. 10.25 crores. That the Appellant filed an application

challenging the reserve price which was disposed off

as infructuous vide order dated 22.07.2020 without going into

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 28 of 46 the merits of the Application since no bids were received at the

reserve price of Rs. 10.25 crores. That it is pertinent to mention

that the Appellant has raised the objections with regard to value

of the reserve price for sale of assets of the corporate

debtor collectively at a belated stage only when the Respondent

issued sale notice. This shows the intention of the Appellant to

delay and derail the Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor.

It is further pertinent to mention that the Appellant was duly

present in the First SCC meeting wherein the Reserve price of Rs.

10.25 crores was recommended by the State Bank of India.

Further, the Respondent shared the first and second minutes of

the SCC meeting with the Appellant and there were no objections

raised by the Appellant in the first meeting or to the minutes of

second meeting of the SCC. That at the third meeting of the

Stakeholders Consultation Committee convened on 14.08.2020,

where the objections raised by the Appellant regarding sale of

Corporate Debtor as a going concern was discussed. Upon

discussions and deliberations, it was decided in Consultation

with all the SCC members that the sale of assets shall be

conducted in the following manner;

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 29 of 46

"1. Firstly, the sale of CD as a going concern as per

Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process)

Regulations, 2016.

2. If no bids are received for sale of CD as a going concern

then the sale of Land & Building, Plant and Machinery and

Miscellaneous Fixed Assets on a collective basis as per

Regulation 32(c) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations,

2016.

3. If no bids are received for sale of CD as going concern and

for collective sale of Land and Building, Plant and Machinery

and Miscellaneous Fixed Assets then sale of:

i. Plant and Machinery and Miscellaneous Fixed

Assets separately on parcel basis under Regulation 32(d)

of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.

ii. Land and Building separately on parcel basis

under Regulation 32(d) of IBBI (Liquidation Process)

Regulations, 2016.

Note:

• In case no bids are received in respect of sale of CD

as a going concern, collective sale of land and

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 30 of 46 building, plant and machinery and miscellaneous

fixed assets and sale of plant and machinery

and Misc Fixed Assets on parcel basis then the sale

shall be carried in respect of land and building on

parcel basis and payment in respect of it shall also

be received within 30 days of the auction closing

date. However, the possession of the Land and

Building shall not be transferred handed over to the

bidder till the time the plant and Machinery and

Misc Fixed Assets are sold auctioned and

removed from the factory site

• The Reserve Price of assets to be sold auctioned

should be atleast Liquidation value".

i. It is pertinent to mention that there is no bar under the Code,

and in the Liquidation Process Regulations, on the Liquidator of

the Corporate Debtor on selling assets of the Corporate Debtor in

Lots. Thus, it is a general practice carried on by most of the

Liquidators to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor in lots in

order to facilitate the Liquidation Process and complete the

process within the prescribed period of one year. The sale of

assets of the Corporate Debtor in lots is as per the provisions

under the Code and underlying Regulations and also with

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 31 of 46 decision of the members of the Stakeholders Consultation

Committee. That the different reserve price charged under each

lot is being charged in accordance with provisions of the Code.

Further, as per e-auction sale notice, the Corporate Debtor will

be sold as a going concern in Lot No. 1 at reserve price of Rs.

13.78 crores, that only if no bids are received in Lot no. 1 then

the assets of the Corporate Debtor will be sold collectively in Lot

no. 2 at reserve price of Rs. 10.25 crores. That the difference in

reserve price fixed under lot no. 1 and lot no. 2 is because under

lot no. 1 there will be transfer of Corporate Debtor as a

going concern under lot no. I which not only includes the Fixed

assets of the Corporate Debtor but also current and financial

assets, receivables etc. and also saving on accounts of transfer of

assets taxes like GST and stamp charges etc. Further, the sale of

assets of the Corporate Debtor collectively will be conducted only

if bid under lot no. 1 fails. Thereafter, only if no bids are received

in Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 then the plant and Machinery and

miscellaneous Fixed assets of the corporate debtor will be sold

separately in Lot no. 3 and Land and Building will be sold

separately in Lot no. 4. It is to mention here that the Sale notice

dated 16.12.2020 have become infructuous on the auction

scheduled on 01.01.2021 no bids were received for any Lots for

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 32 of 46 the Company (in liquidation) and therefore, the Sale notice dated

16.12.2020 has become infructuous and thereby, the present

appeal has also become infructuous. The present Appeal has

been filed by the Appellant assailing the impugned order dated

09.12.2020 on the solitary ground that the impugned order is a

non-speaking order. However, a bare perusal of the impugned

order shows that the Adjudicating Authority after considering the

material on record and the respective submissions of the parties

have passed the impugned order and thus, there is no infirmity

in the impugned order.

7. The ld counsel for the Respondent No.2 (Auction Purchaser) has

stated that Multiple auctions have been conducted by the Liquidator

in respect of the Corporate Debtor and its assets, at least on the

following occasions: 29.05.2020, 22.07.2020, and 01.01.2021, all of

which failed to attract any bidders. The challenge brought by the

Appellants, here, is in respect of the Auction conducted vide. an

auction notice dated 1st January 2021, which also failed to

garner any bidders, and therefore failed on such account. This

Appellate Tribunal, thereafter, gave leave to the Liquidator to

conduct further auctions, in accordance with law, vide. orders dated

23rd December, 2020 and 27th August, 2021. The Liquidator,

therefore, notified an auction, dated 21st December 2021,

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 33 of 46 which was limited to auction of the plant and Machinery &

miscellaneous fixed assets - as LOT No. 1 - of the Corporate Debtor,

in accordance with Regulation 32 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process)

Regulations, 2016. Further, the Liquidator made it clear within the

said notice that the present auction was being conducted pursuant

to the orders of this Appellate Tribunal, and that its result shall be

subject to confirmation by this Appellate Tribunal. The Respondent

No. 2, herein, viz. Pargo Frozen Foods Pvt Ltd, duly participated

at the said auction, and was declared as the highest/successful

bidder for the aforesaid Lot comprising of plant and machinery &

miscellaneous fixed assets of Corporate Debtor, with the highest bid

of Rs. 5,30,55,000/- plus applicable GST and other taxes (Sale

consideration), on 22.12.2021. Further, the Liquidator issued a

confirmation to the Respondent No. 2, dated 22nd December, 2021

of its status as the highest bidder at the said auction, and further

stated that the confirmation of sale shall be issued subject to

confirmation by this Appellate Tribunal. The Respondent No. 2 has

made a deposit of Earnest Money of Rs 53,05,500/-, in accordance

with the auction process memorandum prescribed by the

Liquidator, on 17.12.2021, which is presently lying with the

Liquidator. The Appellants herein have not brought any challenge

as to the legality of the auction conducted vide. auction notice, dated

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 34 of 46 27th November, 2021 where the Respondent No. 2 participated and

was declared as the Highest Bidder by the Liquidator. Therefore, the

present appeal, in so far as it seeks to challenge the legality of an

auction conducted vide. a notice of January 2021, which

eventually failed, has become infructuous.

8. The challenge brought by the Appellants as to the valuation of the

Plant and machinery of the CD is misconceived. It is submitted that

there is no better test of valuation of any asset than an auction itself,

which enables the seller/auctioneer to attract the highest bids for

the assets and estimate the price of such assets. Therefore, the

question of reserve price raised by the appellants is vague,

erroneous and without merit. The lot of Plant and Machinery &

Miscellaneous Fixed Assets deteriorates/ depreciates at a rate faster

than that of other asset classes, is well known and undisputable.

The subject property also requires removal and transport.

Hence, putting it to another auction would only result into further

loss to creditors. Further, whereas, plant& machinery would usually

be disposed at a price lower than the book value, in the present

case, the auction price being paid/ offered by Respondent no. 2 is

much higher than the book value of said assets as on the date

of auction. It is submitted that the offer for the Lot of Plant and

Machinery & Miscellaneous Fixed Assets of Corporate Debtor was

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 35 of 46 made by made by Respondent No. 2 after considering the reserve

price at the public e-auction advertised by the Liquidator

and conducted as per the Process Memorandum (Invitation for bids

for auction of Satnam Agri Products Limited). It is pertinent to note

that the present appeal is merely an academic exercise, and should

be dismissed on this account alone, for it is clear for the

circumstances that the Appellants have themselves not participated

in the insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtor - the present

successful auction or any of the failed auctions - despite that the

insolvency resolution process was brought at their own instance by

way of a petition under section 10 of the Code.

9. Without prejudice to the foregoing submissions, the R2 being a mere

participant at auction craves the indulgence of this Appellate

Tribunal to protect its interests should the appeal be confirmed;

Whereas the Respondent No. 2 is now ready to deposit the full

amount upon issuance of sale confirmation letter and take

possession of property, the Respondent No. 2 apprehends that, in

the event that the present Appeal proceedings are dismissed

and the Liquidator is permitted to issue sale confirmation, that the

Appellants, herein, may prefer a further statutory appeal, in

exercise of the remedy available under section 62 of the Code, and

the transfer of property to the Respondent No.2 in terms of the

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 36 of 46 auction, may once again suffer a stall. The Respondent No. 2,

therefore, humbly prays for the indulgence of this Appellate

Tribunal to protect its interest in the matter in the event that the

Liquidator is permitted to confirm the subject sale - permit the

Respondent to place the balance consideration in escrow to be

released to the Liquidator upon transfer of possession of the

subject matter of the E-auction to the Respondent, or directions to

the Liquidator to not distribute the entire sale consideration until

such time as possession of the subject matter of the E-Auction is

given to the Respondent No. 2, or until such time as the matter

achieves finality, whichever is later, or any other relief as this

Appellate Tribunal deems fit in the present circumstances.

10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties

and extant provisions of the Code and the submissions made by

the ld counsel for the parties including their written submissions

and we are having the following observations:

i. This is a case where CD/Corporate Applicant has itself

initiated petition for CIRP under Section 10 of the Code

which was admitted by Adjudicating Authority/NCLT,

Chandigarh on 05.10.2018.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 37 of 46 ii. The CoC in its meeting held on 12.11.2018 proposed to

replace the IRP with the Respondent Mr.Mahesh Bansal

as RP (Liquidator presently).

iii. The Respondent was appointed as RP by 'Adjudicating

Authority' vide its order dated 28.11.2018.

iv. On 01.11.2019, the 'Adjudicating Authority' passed the

order under Section 33 of the Code for 'Liquidation of the

CD' and Mahesh Bansal- RP was appointed as

'Liquidator'.

v. It is also further clarified that in the first meeting of the

SCC on 25.02.2020, the Liquidator has apprised the

members of the SCC that the Liquidator has appointed

registered valuers in accordance with Regulations 35(2)

of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The

Liquidator has also made 'Stakeholders Consultation

Committee' (SCC) aware that in spite of a lapse of more

than 90 days, the secured Financial Creditor has failed

to relinquish their security interest in favour of the

Liquidation Estate of the CD and has done the same on

the 94th day i.e. on 03.02.2020. The Liquidator also

apprised the SCC Members that the CoC prior to

liquidation order had authorized the sale of CD as a going

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 38 of 46 concern in terms of Regulations 32(e) of IBBI

(Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. If the Liquidator

is unable to sale the CD as a going concern then he shall

proceed to sale the assets of the CD under Regulation

32(a) to (d) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations,

2016.

vi. On the three occasions i.e. 29.05.2020, 22.07.2020 &

01.01.2021, multiple auctions have been conducted by

the Liquidator in respect of the CD and its assets and all

of which failed to attract any bidders.

vii. As far as fixing the value of reserve price is concerned,

SCC members were apprised by Liquidator that it is the

State Bank of India which recommended the reserve price

around Rs. 10 - 10.25 Crore during deliberation in SCC

and should be above the liquidation value.

viii. In the second meeting of SCC held on 19.03.2020, the

liquidator has apprised the members of the SCC that the

figure recommended by State Bank of India needs to be

deliberated amongst and accordingly, the Indian

Overseas Bank and NABARD decided to go in line with

the lead Bank (State Bank of India) and recommended

reserve price of Rs. 10.25 Crores for sale of assets

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 39 of 46 collectively and accordingly Rs. 10.25 crore was fixed by

the Liquidator.

ix. First sale notice dated 08.05.2020 issued by the

Liquidator in respect of e-auction dated 29.05.2020 for

sale of assets of the CD collectively under Regulations

32(c) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016

published in Financial Express (English) Rozana Spokes

Person (Punjabi). However, the said sale notice was

subsequently withdrawn considering the objection raised

by suspended Board of Director and the Appellant herein

the main Appeal - CA(AT)(Ins) No. 1114 of 2020.

x. The Liquidator published second sale notice dated

02.07.2020 for e-auction dated 22.07.2020 for sale of

assets of CD collectively in accordance with the above

stated Regulations and in the same newspaper on

02.07.2020. Again, the suspended Board of Director filed

IA No. 258 /2020 challenging the said sale notice before

the Adjudicating Authority but as no bids were receive in

respect of the said sale notice, the Adjudicating Authority

vide order dated 22.07.2020 was pleased to dismissed

the application as infructuous. In the 3rd Meeting of SCC

held on 14.08.2020, the Liquidator apprised the SCC

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 40 of 46 that no bids were received for collective sale of the assets

of CD at the reserve price of Rs. 10.25 Crore, the

Liquidator decided in consultation with all SCC Members

that the sale of assets shall be conducted in the following

manner:

"1.Firstly, the sale of CD as a going concern as per Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.

2. If no bids are received for sale of CD as a going concern then the sale of Land & Building, Plant and Machinery and Miscellaneous Fixed Assets on a collective basis as per Regulation 32(c) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.

3. if no bids are received for sale of CD as going concern and for collective sale of Land and Building, Plant and Machinery and Miscellaneous Fixed Assets then sale of:

i.Plant and Machinery and Miscellaneous Fixed Assets separately on parcel basis under Regulation 32(d) of IBBI (liquidation process) Regulations, 2016 ii. Land and Building separately on parcel basis

under Regulation 32(d) of IBBI (Liquidation

Process) Regulations 2016."

xi. During the course of the hearing, it was brought on board

that why OTS proposal of Rs. 18 crore made by the CD/

Suspended Director, were not accepted by the banks

whereas the banks are agreeable for a reserve price of Rs.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 41 of 46 10.25 Crore? It was clarified that OTS proposal/ the

amount offered was not only towards release of charge of

Banks on the assets of the CD but was also towards the

release of collateral securities as well which includes one

of the prominent collateral securities i.e Nirmal Cold

Storage valuing Rs. 12 to 15 Crore alongwith other

collateral Securities. Hence, the reserve price as

suggested by State bank of India of Rs. 10.25 Crore

seems to be justified.

xii. It is also observed that the suspended board of Director

filed an application bearing IA No. 389 of 2020 seeking

set aside of sale notice dated 24.08.2020 issued by the

Liquidator before the Adjudicating Authority which was

listed on 04.09.2020 and the Adjudicating Authority after

hearing the parties stayed the e-auction sale notice dated

24.08.2020 till next date of hearing. The Adjudicating

Authority also allowed the Liquidator's IA No. 450 of 2020

for exclusion of Lockdown period from 25.03.2020 to

31.07.2020 from the Liquidation period of the CD. After

the considering the period of exclusion, the liquidator

period of the CD was due to expire on 09.03.2021. The

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 42 of 46 Adjudicating Authority dismissed the IA No. 389 of 2020

vide its order dated 09.12.2020.

xiii. It was also pointed out by this Tribunal on 23.12.2020

that this Tribunal is not staying e-auction proceedings

but the result would be subject to the decision of this

Appeal. Then this Tribunal on 27.08.2021 again observed

that this Tribunal has never stayed e-auction and if

earlier e-auction has failed, we have not restrained the

Liquidator from proceedings in term of law.

xiv. The Liquidator issued e-auction notice dated 27.11.2021

and the bid process memorandum for e-auction for the

sale of lot of plant and machinery and fixed of the CD

wherein the E-auction fixed for 21.12.2021 between

11:00AM to 1:00PM on the specified platform for a

reserve price of Rs.5,30,55,000/-. The said e-auction for

sale of lot of plant and machinery and fixed assets of the

CD as conducted on 21.12.2021 resulted into

Respondent No.2 herein M/s. Pagro Frozen Foods Pvt.

Ltd was declared as Successful Bidder for a price of Rs.

5,30,55,000/- plus applicable GST and other taxes and

the said firm has deposited earnest money deposit of Rs.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 43 of 46 53,05,500/- and the said bidder was declared successful

bidder also by the Liquidator.

xv. In any case, the challenge to the order of the Adjudicating

Authority is in respect of IA No. 389 of 2020 in CP(IB) No.

124/Chd/PB/2018 vide which the Adjudicating

Authority has dismissed the IA of the Appellant and the

Appellant is seeking setting aside and quashing the

impugned order dated 09.12.2020 in the above IA. Since,

this IA has already become infructuous, in view of the

further e-auction notified on 21.12.2021.

xvi. All this suggests that the Applicant in main Company

Appeal i.e CA(AT) (Ins) No 1114 of 2020 is only

interested in delaying and causing hindrance even in

Liquidation proceedings of the CD by filing multiple IAs.

The deliberation in SCC wherein the Applicant has also

participated has elaborately covers related issues and

the Liquidator in some form and other has revealed its

actions and has taken SCC into confidence at every

stage. The Liquidator has also deliberated the mode of

sale of assets in the SCC and, thereafter, has gone ahead

for multiple mode in the e-auction dated 24.08.2020.

Although, going ahead with such multiple mode in one

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 44 of 46 auction is not a healthy trend. In any case, no bid was

received against the said auction and hence, the main

appeal - CA(AT) (Ins) No.1114 of 2020 is prima facie

infructuous. This is also not a healthy trend that the CD

who himself has initiated CIRP under Section 10 of the

Code obstruct and create hindrance at every stage even

in Liquidation. All this has resulted, a petition filed on

05.10.2018 for revival of CD or maximization of value of

CD has miserable failed as even after four years, the

matter has not come to a closing stage resulting into

either revival of CD or maximation of value of asset of CD

which is depleting in course of lapse of time. Hence, we

are dismissing the Appeal - CA(AT) (Ins) No.1114 of 2020.

xvii. As far as IA No. 188 of 2022 is concerned, which has been

filed by the Liquidator seeking permission to confirm sale

of lot of plant and machinery and fixed assets of the CD

whereby M/s. Pagro Frozen Food Pvt. Ltd- R2 has been

declared as successful bidder pursuant to e-auction

conducted on 21.12.2021 requires consideration by this

Tribunal. From the analysis and observations as stated

supra this merits consideration on multiple counts.

Multiple auctions conducted by Liquidator from May,

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 45 of 46 2020 to January, 2021 has failed to attract any bidders

and the current e-auction has resulted into a bid which

is not lower than reserve price and the successful bidder

has deposited the earnest money with the bid and may

be directed to deposit the balance amount within a period

of one month which the liquidator is to keep in a separate

account till all the assets are realized in accordance with

the provisions of the Code.

With these observations, IA No. 188 of 2022 is allowed.

Accordingly, we are disposing of CA(AT) (Ins) No.1114 of

2020 and IA No. 188 of 2022 with above observations and

directions.

Interim order, if any, passed by this Tribunal stands

vacated.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

(Justice M. Venugopal) Member(Judicial)

(Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member(Technical) 14th July, 2022 New Delhi Raushan.K

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) No. 1114 of 2020 Page 46 of 46