Tribunal Upheld Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit and Part Consideration

The Tribunal upheld the Liquidator's decision to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and part consideration by the Appellant, rejecting the argument that such forfeiture was impermissible under the Indian Contract Act. The Tribunal found that the terms and conditions of the Tender Document allowed for such forfeiture in case of default, and the Appellant had accepted these terms. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's claim of a defect in the property title, stating that the alleged issues did not justify the Appellant's failure to pay the balance amount on time. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the sale and the forfeiture of the amounts deposited by the Appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and part consideration by the Liquidator.
2. Alleged defect in the title of the Corporate Debtor's property.

Summary:

Issue 1: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and part consideration by the Liquidator

The Appellant challenged the forfeiture of the EMD and part consideration by the Liquidator, arguing that such forfeiture is a penalty and impermissible under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Appellant contended that the Liquidator should have filed a suit for recovery of the penalty by way of compensation and did not have the jurisdiction to forfeit the amounts. The Appellant also claimed that there is no provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 that allows for such forfeiture upon cancellation of the sale due to the purchaser's default.

The Tribunal, however, rejected this argument, stating that the terms and conditions of the Tender Document, which were prepared under the statutory empowerment given to the Liquidator by the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, clearly allowed for the forfeiture of the EMD and part consideration in case of default. The Tribunal also noted that the Appellant had accepted these terms unconditionally. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority, which held that Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act does not apply to forfeiture under the terms and conditions of a public auction before an agreement is reached. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Liquidator was within his rights to forfeit the EMD and part consideration.

Issue 2: Alleged defect in the title of the Corporate Debtor's property

The Appellant also argued that there was a defect in the title of the property and that the Liquidator had suppressed crucial information. The Appellant pointed out that the land was still registered in the name of Anil Products Limited instead of Anil Limited and that there were outstanding property tax dues.

The Tribunal found these arguments to be without merit. It noted that the name change from Anil Products Limited to Anil Limited was a matter of record and did not affect the title of the property. The Tribunal also observed that the Appellant had been advised to conduct their own due diligence before participating in the e-Auction, as stipulated in the Tender Document. The Tribunal further noted that the Liquidator had obtained a No Dues Certificate for the property tax and that any issues related to the title or encumbrances would be resolved before the transfer of the property to the highest bidder.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant's failure to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time was not justified by any alleged defects in the title or suppression of information by the Liquidator. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Liquidator's decision to cancel the sale and forfeit the amounts deposited by the Appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the Appellant's application for an extension of the interest-free period and to uphold the forfeiture of the EMD and part consideration.

---