Tribunal Dismisses Application for Vehicle Registration Post Liquidation Sale

The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's Section 60(5) IBC application seeking relief for RC Book issuance and name transfer for vehicles purchased in E-Auction post-liquidation. The Tribunal held that the property was sold "as is where is," with existing encumbrances, and the Applicant, aware of these terms, could not demand registration post-purchase. Not involving the charge holder and failure to address the 2nd Respondent's demands led to the dismissal of the application. Successful bidders in liquidation sales remain liable for previous dues on purchased assets, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
- Application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking relief for issuance of RC Book and name transfer for vehicles purchased in E-Auction.
- Dispute regarding the issuance of duplicate RC books for vehicles purchased in E-Auction.
- Interpretation of Section 238 of IBC, 2016 in relation to demanding pending road tax prior to CIRP or liquidation process.
- Liability of successful bidder in E-Auction for paying previous dues on assets purchased under liquidation.
- Absolution of successful bidder from previous dues upon purchasing assets under liquidation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The Applicant filed an Application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking relief for the issuance of RC Book and name transfer for vehicles purchased in an E-Auction conducted after the Corporate Debtor went into liquidation. The Applicant had paid the sale consideration and fulfilled the terms of the auction.

2. The Applicant's Counsel argued that the Liquidator had issued a sale certificate, but the original RC Books were missing for 3 out of 5 vehicles purchased. The Liquidator had initiated the process for duplicate RC books, but the 2nd Respondent demanded payment of road tax and other charges for the vehicles.

3. The Applicant contended that as a bonafide purchaser participating in the E-Auction, the 2nd Respondent should not demand pending road tax prior to the CIRP or liquidation process. The Applicant sought a direction to issue duplicate RC books without additional conditions.

4. The 1st Respondent's Counsel argued that the assets were sold "as is where is," and the E-Auction terms stated that some vehicles did not have original RC Books. The Liquidator had requested waiver of road tax, but the 2nd Respondent demanded payment.

5. The Tribunal noted that the E-Auction terms made it clear that the property was sold with existing and future encumbrances. The Applicant, being aware of these terms, could not invoke IBC sections seeking registration of vehicles post-purchase.

6. The Tribunal highlighted that the Applicant did not involve a charge holder in the proceedings, even though the RC Book reflected the charge. Buying assets under liquidation does not absolve the successful bidder from paying previous dues, if any.

7. The Tribunal emphasized that the Applicant should have approached the proper authority regarding the 2nd Respondent's demands. The application was dismissed as the property was sold on an "as is where is basis," and the Applicant failed to show merit in their claims.

8. The judgment clarified the distinction between buying assets under CIRP and during liquidation, stating that successful bidders are liable for previous dues on assets purchased under liquidation. The Tribunal dismissed the application with no costs awarded.

---