2024 (3) TMI 1293 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Tribunal Dismisses Appeal, Denies Interim Relief on E-Auction; Appellant Can Seek Redress Through Competent Forum.

Ansio Industries Pvt Ltd Versus M/s Venkat Ram Spinners Private Limited, CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar Liquidator, M/s Venkat Ram Spinners Private Limited, State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed Comp. Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.106/2024, denying interim relief sought by the Appellant under Section 60(5) of the ... Seeking grant of Interim Stay of the Sale Notice - sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor and the property of one Mr. S. Srinivasan (Guarantor) - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal, pertinently points out, that obviously, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, is not desirous of assailing the subsequent E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024, (being the later development, after the earlier Auction Notice dated 16.09.2023) and in the absence of any challenge to the subsequent E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024, then in law, it amounts to waiver, Acquiescence and also Estoppel By Conduct, of the Appellant/Petitioner. The instant Comp. Appeal filed by the Appellant, is only an exercise in futility/otiose one, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. As such, this Tribunal is not inclined to entertain the instant Comp. Appeal and Dismisses the same, at the Admission stage, without traversing, or delving deep into the subject matter in issue. Company appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the grant of interim stay of a sale notice, dismissal of interlocutory application, challenge to e-auction notice, and waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel by conduct.Grant of Interim Stay of Sale Notice:The Appellate Tribunal heard arguments regarding Appeal against the Impugned Order dated 09.02.2024 seeking to grant Interim Stay of the Sale Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent for the sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor and a guarantor. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the relief sought by the Appellant, a Successful Resolution Applicant, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, citing reasons related to the mortgaging of properties by the Corporate Debtor and the joint sale of properties of the Corporate Debtor and Guarantors. The Tribunal found no merit in the application and dismissed it.Dismissal of Interlocutory Application:The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the Appellant under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to quash a sale notice and grant interim stay. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal, referring to the joint sale of properties of the Corporate Debtor and Guarantors, following the decision in a previous case. The Appellant's plea was not entertained by the Tribunal.Challenge to E-Auction Notice:The Appellant challenged the E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024, which led to the sale of properties to the Highest Bidder. The Appellant's legal standing to challenge the E-auction Notice was discussed, with the Tribunal highlighting that the terms and conditions of the E-auction Notice were similar to the earlier Auction Notice dated 16.09.2023. The Tribunal pointed out that failure to challenge the subsequent E-auction Notice amounted to waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel by conduct on the part of the Appellant.Waiver, Acquiescence, and Estoppel by Conduct:The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant's failure to challenge the subsequent E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024, after the earlier Auction Notice, constituted waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel by conduct. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the Appeal to be an exercise in futility and dismissed it at the Admission stage without delving deep into the subject matter in issue. The Tribunal stated that the dismissal of the Appeal did not prevent the Appellant from seeking redressal through the Competent Forum in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The Comp. Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.106/2024 was dismissed by the Tribunal without costs. The Tribunal clarified that the dismissal did not prevent the Appellant from seeking redressal through the Competent Forum in accordance with the law. Connected pending applications for Directions, Exemption, and Stay were closed.