Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Tessenderlo Chemie International ... vs Sterling Biotech Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal4 April 2022Ashok Bhushan

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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 364 of 2022In the matter of:

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