2023 (8) TMI 619 - SCH - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Court dismisses auction non-participation claims, upholding Insolvency Code objectives. Appellant's appeal dismissed due to payment failure.

The court dismissed applications related to non-participation in an auction despite willingness to pay more, finding no substantial reason for ... Sanction of scheme of compromise and arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. HELD THAT:- The application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Non-participation in auction and willingness to pay more.2. Allegations of the process being rushed leading to undervaluation.3. Inability to raise the required amount for payment in a legal matter.Issue 1: Non-participation in auction and willingness to pay moreIn the first part of the judgment, the court addressed the issue of non-participation in an auction despite willingness to pay more. The applicant claimed to have missed the auction but expressed readiness to pay a higher amount. However, the court found no substantial reason for the applicant to intervene in the matter. Consequently, the applications related to this issue were dismissed.Issue 2: Allegations of the process being rushed leading to undervaluationThe second issue involved applications by home buyers alleging that the auction process was hurried, resulting in undervaluation of the property. The court emphasized that prolonging the matter through such endeavors would contradict the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Therefore, the court dismissed these applications, highlighting the importance of following due process to avoid delays that could undermine the IBC's purpose.Issue 3: Inability to raise the required amount for payment in a legal matterLastly, the judgment dealt with a situation where the appellant failed to raise the specified amount for payment in a legal matter. Despite having a draft of a lesser sum, the appellant could not meet the required Rs.12.48 crores. The court acknowledged the appellant's efforts but ultimately dismissed the civil appeal due to the non-fulfillment of the financial obligation as promised on the stipulated date.