2025 (3) TMI 1070 - AT - IBC

Secured creditor loses Haldia property after missing 90-day deadline under Regulation 21A requirements

Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kuldeep Verma Liquidator of KS Oils Ltd. & Ors.

Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kuldeep Verma Liquidator of KS Oils Ltd. & Ors. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the Appellant, Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., properly retained its security interest in the Haldia property during the liquidation process of KS Oils Ltd., or if the property became part of the Liquidation Estate due to non-compliance with relevant regulations.Whether the Liquidator acted correctly in including the Haldia property in the Liquidation Estate and proceeding with its sale.Whether the successful bidder, Halder Venture Ltd., should be allowed to complete the purchase of the Haldia property despite delays in payment.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Retention of Security Interest by Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd.Relevant legal framework and precedents: The issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Regulation 21A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, which governs the relinquishment or realization of security interests by secured creditors during liquidation.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the secured creditor must comply with Regulation 21A, which requires the creditor to pay certain amounts within specified timeframes to retain its security interest. The Appellant failed to comply with these requirements, leading to the presumption that the Haldia property became part of the Liquidation Estate.Key evidence and findings: The Appellant did not pay the amounts required under Regulation 21A(2) within the stipulated 90 days from the liquidation commencement date, nor did it communicate any intention to do so.Application of law to facts: The Appellant's failure to comply with the regulatory requirements resulted in the Haldia property being treated as part of the Liquidation Estate, as per the presumption under Regulation 21A(3).Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant argued that it was not informed of the estimated amounts by the Liquidator; however, the Court noted that the Appellant did not request such information or take necessary steps under Regulation 37.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Appellant's non-compliance with Regulation 21A resulted in the inclusion of the Haldia property in the Liquidation Estate.Issue 2: Liquidator's Actions and Sale of Haldia PropertyRelevant legal framework and precedents: The actions of the Liquidator are governed by the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, particularly Regulations 21A and 37, which outline the process for realizing security interests and conducting sales during liquidation.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Liquidator acted within the legal framework by including the Haldia property in the Liquidation Estate due to the Appellant's non-compliance with the regulations.Key evidence and findings: The Liquidator issued multiple sale notices for the Haldia property, and the property was eventually sold to Halder Venture Ltd. for Rs.57.10 crores, which was consistent with the estimated value.Application of law to facts: The Liquidator's actions were consistent with the requirements of the IBBI regulations, and the sale process was conducted with the concurrence of the Stakeholder Consultation Committee (SCC).Treatment of competing arguments: The Appellant's objections to the sale were dismissed due to its failure to comply with the regulatory requirements.Conclusions: The Court upheld the Liquidator's decision to include the Haldia property in the Liquidation Estate and proceed with its sale.Issue 3: Completion of Sale to Halder Venture Ltd.Relevant legal framework and precedents: The completion of the sale is subject to the terms of the auction and the ability of the successful bidder to fulfill payment obligations.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered the willingness of Halder Venture Ltd. to complete the purchase by paying the balance amount with interest and the precedent set by the Supreme Court regarding the extension of payment timelines.Key evidence and findings: Halder Venture Ltd. had submitted the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and expressed readiness to pay the remaining amount with interest.Application of law to facts: The Court found sufficient cause to allow Halder Venture Ltd. to complete the purchase by depositing the balance amount with interest within 30 days.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balanced the interests of the Liquidator and the successful bidder, considering the lack of other bidders and the legal framework for extending payment timelines.Conclusions: The Court permitted Halder Venture Ltd. to complete the purchase of the Haldia property by paying the balance amount with interest.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the Appellant's failure to comply with Regulation 21A resulted in the Haldia property becoming part of the Liquidation Estate, affirming the Liquidator's actions.The Court established that secured creditors must actively comply with the requirements of the IBBI regulations to retain their security interests during liquidation.The Court allowed the successful bidder, Halder Venture Ltd., to complete the purchase of the Haldia property by depositing the balance amount with interest, recognizing the bidder's readiness to fulfill its obligations.