Tribunal Upholds Auction Results; Dismisses Untimely Appeal Due to Lack of Participation and Untimely Submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal due to lack of merit, emphasizing that the Appellant, despite being a qualified bidder, did not participate in the auction. The Auction for lot-III had concluded, rendering challenges to the auction notice unfeasible. The Tribunal upheld that regulatory timelines supersede process document discrepancies, and non-refundable EMD challenges should have been raised earlier. Consequently, the Appellant's submissions were deemed untimely and insufficient to warrant relief.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against Order dated 12.12.2023 regarding Sale of Assets of Corporate Debtor, Appointment of Liquidator, E-Auction process, and adherence to law.

Summary:
The Appellant filed an Appeal seeking various reliefs, including quashing of Notices related to the Sale of Assets, appointment of a qualified Liquidator, reconducting the E-Auction, and maintaining status quo in the Liquidation Process. The Appellant claimed inadequate inspection time and non-refundable EMD demand, challenging the process document's clauses.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Application, stating that the property in question was sold in the e-auction. The Appellant raised concerns about discrepancies in the payment timeline mentioned in the process document and Schedule I.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant did not participate in any auction despite being a qualified bidder. The Auction for lot-III had already taken place, making it unfeasible to challenge the auction notice. Regarding the payment timeline conflict, the regulation prevails over the process document, and payment is due only for successful bidders.

The Tribunal found no grounds to entertain the Appellant's submissions post-auction deadline, emphasizing that challenges to clauses like non-refundable EMD should have been raised earlier. Ultimately, the Appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

---