LiquSale-Private Sale

Even though the Clause (1C) and (1D) of Schedule I to Liquidation Regulations is sometime held to be directory in nature, however usage of word “Shall” make it more definitive and rightly for the reasons of transparency and to above any arbitrariness in the public procurement processes – S M Steels and Power Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Dhanuka Liquidator of Corporate Power Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

The Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench held that the essence of Regulation 33(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations is that in case a collusion exists it would lead to an under recovery of the assets of the Corporate Debtor which is against the primary purpose of the IBC, 2016. As can be made out from Regulations 33 Schedule I is 1C and 1D that even though the Schedule I is sometime held to be directory in nature, however usage of word “Shall” make it more definitive and rightly for the reasons of transparency and to above any arbitrariness in the public procurement processes.

Even though the Clause (1C) and (1D) of Schedule I to Liquidation Regulations is sometime held to be directory in nature, however usage of word “Shall” make it more definitive and rightly for the reasons of transparency and to above any arbitrariness in the public procurement processes – S M Steels and Power Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Dhanuka Liquidator of Corporate Power Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

Whether Liquidator is authorized to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor in blocks? – Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund v. Ms. Rekha Kantilal Shah – NCLT Mumbai Bench

NCLT Mumbai Bench held that:
(i) The Liquidator has been provided with ample powers not only to sell the land in parcels but also not to be bound by the consultation with the stakeholders.
(ii) Section 36 of the IB Code 2016 categorically stipulates the scope and ambit of the liquidation estate. Sub-Section (4) of Section 36 is with respect to the assets which shall not be included in the liquidation estate and shall not be used for recovery in the liquidation.
(iii) The Liquidator is authorized to sell the immovable and movable property of the Corporate Debtor in liquidation through a public auction or a private contract, either collectively, or in a piecemeal manner.
(iv) The proviso to Section 35 (2) of the IBC makes it clear that the opinion of the stakeholders would not be binding on the Liquidator.

Whether Liquidator is authorized to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor in blocks? – Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund v. Ms. Rekha Kantilal Shah – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

NCLT directs the Liquidator to sell assets of a Corporate Debtor through open auction under the direct supervision of a Senior Officer of IBBI – M/s. Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Jot Impex Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II

IAs filed to praying grant permission to the Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor to distribute the two unsold properties of the Corporate Debtor to the ICICI Bank Limited in terms of Section 53 of IBC read with Liquidation Process Regulation 38 subject to the payment of the Liquidator Fee and Expenses incurred by the applicant being the Liquidator during the liquidation process as assured by the ICICI Bank Limited.
NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II held that as there are also other creditors including the CBDT (Income-Tax Department), it could be fair if the property is sold by open auction and the money is distributed in terms of provisions of Section 53 of the IBC, 2016 as per the waterfall mechanism. Though the liquidation order in the present case was passed on 20.12.2019, and admittedly these were only two assets that were to be disposed of by the Liquidator, the Liquidator has not been able to dispose of them on one pretext or the other. Though he submits that the assets were advertised twice. In the wake, we are inclined to order that the assets of the Corporate Debtor should be liquidated with due process of the open auction to be advertised in the newspapers under the direct supervision of a senior officer of IBBI. Let the process be completed within six weeks.

NCLT directs the Liquidator to sell assets of a Corporate Debtor through open auction under the direct supervision of a Senior Officer of IBBI – M/s. Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Jot Impex Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority by adopting a process of taking two bids cannot conclude the sale of a Corporate Debtor without giving an opportunity to Liquidator to take steps for private sale – State Bank of India Vs. Bhuvee Stenovate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

In the present case, Laser Solar LLP(R2) has given an offer to the liquidator to acquire the assets by way of private sale of Rs. 50.05 Crores which offer was rejected by the Liquidator on 13.05.2022. On IA by R2, Adjudicating Authority directed both R2 and M/s. Jindal Stainless Ltd. to submit their respective bids under cover of sealed envelope before the Adjudicating Authority and thereafter, confirmed the sale by private treaty in favour of the highest bidder(R2). NCLAT held that the liquidator under the statutory Scheme of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 have been empowered to take a decision regarding sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Merely on the basis of one application and other by an intervenor, the Adjudicating Authority could not have concluded the sale in favour of the R2. The Adjudicating Authority by adopting a process of taking two bids, one by the Applicant and another by intervenor could not have concluded the sale of the Corporate Debtor without giving an opportunity to the liquidator to take steps for private sale.

Adjudicating Authority by adopting a process of taking two bids cannot conclude the sale of a Corporate Debtor without giving an opportunity to Liquidator to take steps for private sale – State Bank of India Vs. Bhuvee Stenovate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top