Liquidation sale as a going concern confirmed; bid terms governed payment, and an ineligible ex-promoter lacked standing.

A liquidation sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern was upheld where the e-auction was conducted under the approved bid process and liquidation framework, and the bid terms required Adjudicating Authority approval before transfer. The objection that the sale was incomplete because full consideration was not paid within 90 days was rejected because the bid document governed the payment timeline. An ex-promoter found ineligible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the liquidation regulations had no locus standi to challenge the sale or insist on consideration of his settlement proposal. The confirmed sale and connected objections were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the e-auction conducted for sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern and the consequent letter of intent in favour of the successful bidders were liable to be confirmed; (ii) Whether the ex-promoter had locus standi to object to the sale process or to insist on participation or consideration of his settlement proposal.

Issue (i): Whether the e-auction conducted for sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern and the consequent letter of intent in favour of the successful bidders were liable to be confirmed.

Analysis: The liquidation process had proceeded after the failure of resolution and compromise/arrangement efforts. The sale process was conducted under the liquidation framework, including the public announcement, bid process document, and the relevant sale provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Liquidation Regulations. The bid process document provided that for acquisition of the company as a going concern, the transfer date would occur only after approval of the bid by the Adjudicating Authority, and the balance consideration would then be payable within the stipulated period. The reserve price had been revised in the second auction, and the successful bidders had offered a price substantially above that reserve price. The objection that the sale was incomplete because the full amount had not been paid within 90 days from the letter of intent was rejected as contrary to the bid document.

Conclusion: The e-auction and the letter of intent stood confirmed, and the sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern in favour of the successful bidders was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex-promoter had locus standi to object to the sale process or to insist on participation or consideration of his settlement proposal.

Analysis: The ex-promoter had already been found ineligible under Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and had also been held ineligible to participate in the liquidation scheme process under the applicable liquidation regulations. In light of those findings, the ex-promoter could not claim a right to intervene in the sale proceedings or to compel consideration of his settlement proposal. The prior rejection of his participation by the stakeholders also rendered the proposed settlement academic.

Conclusion: The ex-promoter had no locus standi to oppose the confirmed sale or to press for participation in the process at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The liquidation sale in favour of the successful bidders was approved, the ex-promoter's objections were rejected, and the connected challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a liquidation sale governed by the approved bid process, the bidder's obligations and transfer timeline are controlled by the sale terms and the approval mechanism, and a person already found ineligible under Section 29A cannot claim a right to intervene or participate in the liquidation sale process.

---