Tessenderlo Chemie International ... vs Sterling Biotech Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 364 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellant's complaint about inadequate information is not a ground for interfering with an order of the Adjudicating Authority where the liquidator has disclosed the information available in her records and the sale is conducted on an "as is where is, whatever there is basis" footing. The prospective bidder bears the responsibility of obtaining whatever further information it requires and deciding whether to bid on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Tessenderlo Chemie International NV/SA ....Appellant Vs. Sterling Biotech Ltd. ...Respondent Rep. By its Liquidator Ms. Mamta Binani For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Vijay Nair, Mr. Arpit Dwivedi, Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aakanksha Nehra, Ms. Rajshree Choudhary, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advocates for Liquidator. Mr. Atmaran N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shreeyas U. Lalit, Mr. Vishesh Srivastava, Advocates for Intervenor.
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
04.04.2022: Heard Shri Abhishek Anand, Learned Counsel for the
Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2022 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Court-I,
Mumbai, Special Bench by which I.A No. 549 of 2022 filed by the Appellant
has been rejected. The Liquidator has issued notice for auction "as is where
is, whatever there is basis". The Appellant wanted certain information from
the Liquidator and has asked for information vide letter dated 24.12.2021.
The Liquidator has stated before the Adjudicating Authority that the she has
already sent response to the Application vide its letter dated 04.03.2022.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 364 of 2022 While deciding the I.A, the Adjudicating Authority in the order itself has
extracted the information sought for and response given by the Liquidator.
3. Shri Abhishek Anand, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that
the complete information as was required by the Appellant have not been
provided for. He submits that the Appellant is prospective bidder and
Company is stationed at Belgium.
4. Be that as it may, the auction has been fixed "as is where is, whatever
there is basis" and the Liquidator has provided the information as per her
records. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by
the Adjudicating Authority in the present Appeal. It is for the Appellant to
take care and other information as per its satisfaction to decide to bid or not.
The Liquidator having provided the relevant information, we see no reason to
entertain this Appeal at this stage. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
Anjali/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 364 of 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free