02/03/2023

The mistakes in the e-auction publication would certainly amount to material illegality and irregularity that vitiates the entire process of auction – Sunrise Industries Vs. Naren Seth – NCLT Mumbai Bench

Adjudicating Authority held that there was not even 30 days gap from the date of paper publication and the date of e-auction. The e-auction notice published in paper publication as well as in the IBBI portal does not contain the date and time of inspection of the property which is very important in every e-auction publication. The Liquidator has completed the e-auction in utmost haste within one week for the reasons best known to him. The hasty manner and the procedural irregularities committed by the Liquidator in conducting the above auction clearly points out finger towards his conduct and this Bench has taken a very serious note of the same. As rightly contended by the Applicant, issuing of corrigendum after completion of the e-auction serves no purpose and the very object of issuing corrigendum is frustrated by issuing such corrigendum after completion of e-auction and such an e-auction has to be set aside on that score alone.

The mistakes in the e-auction publication would certainly amount to material illegality and irregularity that vitiates the entire process of auction – Sunrise Industries Vs. Naren Seth – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Even after completion of Challenge Mechanism under CIRP Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retain its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP – Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. Vs. Torrent Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this landmark judgment, NCLAT has interpreted CIRP Regulation 39 with questions such as (i) Whether Regulation 39(1A) contains an implied prohibition on the jurisdiction of the CoC to enter into any further negotiations with Resolution Applicant or to further ask a Resolution Applicant to increase its Resolution Plan value, (ii) Whether the Regulation 39(1A) has taken place of the negotiation process and it forecloses any negotiation by CoC with Resolution Applicant (iii) authorisation of authorised representative to file a appeal etc.

NCLAT has concluded that even after completion of Challenge Mechanism under Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retain its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP. Regulation 39(1A) cannot be read as a fetter on the powers of the CoC to discuss and deliberate and take further steps of negotiations with the Resolution Applicants, which resolutions are received after completion of  Challenge Mechanism.

Even after completion of Challenge Mechanism under CIRP Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retain its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP – Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. Vs. Torrent Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Case of part payment by a homebuyer for allotment of a flat and subsequently CIRP (Insolvency) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor/Real Estate Company – Parveen Gakhar Vs. Adani Goodhomes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, the Appellant has booked a flat in the project of the Corporate Debtor and has made an advance payment of Rs. 4,95,000/- and total amount paid by the Appellant is Rs. 5,27,500/-. The notices were issued by the Corporate Debtor to the Appellant to make the balance amount. Last such letter was issued on 27.09.2018 asking the Appellant to make payment of Rs. 21,84,377 and Appellant did not make any payment in pursuance of the notice.

Subsequently, the CIRP was initiated on 30.04.2021 against the Corporate Debtor. There has been certain correspondence between the Appellant and the Resolution Professional but ultimately the unit which was sought to be claimed was included in the list of unsold units and subsequently the Resolution Plan has been approved on 09.01.2023. The Application was filed by the Appellant seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to register the agreement for sale in respect of the Flat which application has been rejected.

Case of part payment by a homebuyer for allotment of a flat and subsequently CIRP (Insolvency) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor/Real Estate Company – Parveen Gakhar Vs. Adani Goodhomes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top