Bidder allowed to challenge private Swiss-challenge sale; liquidator needed prior permission under Reg.33(2)(d); fresh notices ordered

NCLAT held that the bidder challenging the private Swiss-challenge sale had locus to sue, noting compressed timelines, a withheld Process Document and restrictive EMDs which impeded genuine participation and advantaged the anchor bidder. The Tribunal found the Liquidator should have obtained prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority under Reg.33(2)(d) before conducting the private sale, but there was insufficient material to infer collusion between the anchor bidder and the major creditor. The public notice was set aside; the private sale was approved subject to fresh national/vernacular notices and reasonable EMD fixation. Appeal disposed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a non-participating prospective bidder who seeks to join a concluded private Swiss-Challenge sale before judicial approval has locus to file an application challenging the sale process.

2. Whether the timelines and manner of issuance of the Process Document and public announcement governing a private sale by Swiss-Challenge (under Regulation 33 LPR Schedule-I Clause 2) were reasonable and enabled wider and effective participation of prospective bidders.

3. Whether the Process Document and related procedures were structured so as to advantage the anchor bidder and to impede other bidders (including by fixing an excessive EMD or by late issuance of the Process Document).

4. Whether "prior permission" of the Adjudicating Authority under Regulation 33(2)(d) of the Liquidation Process Regulations (LPR) was required before initiating and fixing terms of a private Swiss-Challenge sale, and if so whether such prior permission was obtained.

5. Whether there was sufficient material on record to constitute the Liquidator's "reason to believe" (under Regulation 33(3) LPR) that collusion existed between stakeholders (creditor/ARC trust) and the anchor bidder so as to require suspension of the sale and reporting to the Adjudicating Authority.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Locus of a belated prospective bidder

Legal framework: Standing to challenge liquidation sale processes derives from the statutory scheme (IBC/LPR) and settled administrative law principles; courts have held that non-participants ordinarily cannot attack concluded sales.

Precedent treatment: The Court referred to the ratio in Subir Ghosh and acknowledged its principle that a party who did not participate cannot ordinarily challenge tender conditions, while recognizing fact-sensitivity.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined chronology and found the private Swiss-Challenge process had been completed but final judicial approval remained pending. The belated prospective bidder had, prior to judicial approval, written expressing interest, sought Process Document/EMD details, and submitted a higher offer (with conditional terms). SCC minutes showed at least two SCC members advocated giving that party a chance because Adjudicating Authority's approval was outstanding. The Court held these facts distinguished a pure non-participant challenge: intervention occurred before NCLT confirmation and the complainant contemporaneously raised specific grievances about timelines and access to documents.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a party may have locus to seek judicial intervention where (i) judicial approval of the sale is pending, and (ii) the party raises bona fide, contemporaneous grievances that, if substantiated, affect fairness of sale; mere post-confirmation opportunism lacks locus. Obiter - remarks on commercial opportunism and timeliness.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority did not err in entertaining the application of the belated prospective bidder; locus existed on the facts because intervention occurred prior to judicial confirmation and raised arguable grievances concerning process and access.

Issue 2 - Reasonableness of timelines for private Swiss-Challenge sale (Schedule-I applicability)

Legal framework: Schedule-I of Regulation 33 LPR distinguishes auction (Clause 1) and private sale (Clause 2); timelines in Schedule-I(1) govern auction, not private sale. Nevertheless, reasonable opportunity and transparency are statutory objectives underpinning LPR and IBC's value-maximisation mandate.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on R.K. Industries (Supreme Court) and Tribunal precedents emphasizing transparency and prior permission requirements for private sale; also accepted that SCC exercise of commercial wisdom is ordinarily non-justiciable (subject to reasonableness constraints).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found Schedule-I auction timelines inapplicable mechanically to a private Swiss-Challenge sale because the Regulation itself separates auction and private sale. However, irrespective of formal inapplicability, the liquidator retains an obligation to ensure the private sale affords reasonable time for due diligence and participation. The Court examined documentary timeline: public announcement set deadlines; the Process Document (listing eligibility documents and EMD modalities) bore a date after the last date for eligibility submission; EMD deadline coincided with Process Document publication date; overall time windows for submission, inspection and EMD were effectively inadequate. The Court held that even where private sale timelines are fixed by SCC, the liquidator must exercise oversight to prevent impracticable timelines that stifle participation and defeat transparency/value-maximisation objectives.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - private sale procedures, while distinct from auction, must still provide reasonable, practicable timelines and disclosure so as to enable meaningful participation; failure to do so vitiates the process. Obiter - observations that SCC commercial wisdom is non-justiciable but not a license for impractical timelines.

Conclusion: The timelines and manner of issuance of the Process Document were unreasonable and impeded participation; the private sale process, as conducted, failed the transparency and value-maximisation standards required by IBC/LPR.

Issue 3 - Whether the Process Document advantaged the anchor bidder (EMD and late disclosure)

Legal framework: Liquidator to ensure fair, competitive process; EMD quantum and modalities should not be structured to exclude bidders; Schedule-I provides norms (EMD not exceeding 10% in auction context) and private sale must be reasonable.

Precedent treatment: The Court applied principles from R.K. Industries and Tribunal decisions criticizing processes that produce de-facto exclusivity or unfair advantage; Colfax (Supreme Court) cited for collusion standard.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Process Document was dated after the eligibility cutoff, thereby withholding the list/format of eligibility documents until the day of EMD deadline; the EMD (Rs.150 Cr) and the deadline timing made compliance effectively impossible for new entrants, while anchor bidder had been permitted to place EMD earlier and by BG. These facts indicated structural impediments to other bidders and practical advantage to anchor bidder. Though some SCC members had approved EMD quantum, the liquidator's oversight responsibility required ensuring terms were reasonable to enable wider participation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - late issuance of the governing Process Document and excessive/illusory EMD deadlines amount to procedural vitiation; such terms that preclude effective participation justify setting aside the notice and require fresh process. Obiter - SCC approval does not immunize manifestly impractical or exclusionary conditions.

Conclusion: The Process Document's timing and EMD structure advantaged the anchor bidder and unduly restricted others; the sale notice was rightly set aside to facilitate a fresh, reasonably framed process.

Issue 4 - Requirement and scope of "prior permission" under Regulation 33(2)(d) LPR

Legal framework: Regulation 33(2) permits private sale only after prior consultation with SCC and, where sub-para (d) applies, "prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority" is required; proviso requires prior permission where sale is to related parties.

Precedent treatment: The Court followed Supreme Court's R.K. Industries and Tribunal rulings (Bhavik) stressing that "prior permission" is not a mere formality and must ordinarily precede initiation/settling of material terms of private sale to prevent a fait accompli.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the liquidator's contention that "prior permission" need not precede process initiation where SCC had deliberated or that permission could be contemporaneous/ex post. The ordinary meaning of "prior" requires authorization before terms and modalities of private sale are finalized and announced. Filing an application after the public announcement and after material steps had been undertaken (selection of anchor bid, fixation of EMD and timelines, issuance of LOI subject to approval) rendered the Adjudicating Authority's approval a post facto rubber stamp and undermined the regulatory safeguard.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - "prior permission" under Regulation 33(2)(d) must be sought before material steps fixing terms and modalities of a private sale are taken; presenting a concluded process to the adjudicating body is impermissible. Obiter - recognition that SCC commercial wisdom matters, but cannot supplant statutory "prior permission".

Conclusion: The Liquidator erred by proceeding to conclude material aspects of the private Swiss-Challenge sale without securing prior approval; the Adjudicating Authority was justified in setting aside the public notice and directing a fresh process subject to prior permission principles being observed.

Issue 5 - Whether material existed to invoke Regulation 33(3) (reason to believe collusion) and to report to Adjudicating Authority

Legal framework: Regulation 33(3) prohibits proceeding with sale where the liquidator has "reason to believe" that collusion exists and requires submission of a report to the Adjudicating Authority; "reason to believe" must be based on material on record, not mere suspicion.

Precedent treatment: The Court applied the Colfax test for collusion (secret or dishonest agreement) and emphasised evidence requirement for proving coordinated anti-competitive conduct.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analysed allegations of funding/assignment links and common ultimate beneficial ownership between creditor trustee and anchor bidder. It found that (a) the SCC's voting thresholds showed other creditors joined in approvals (no sole control by the creditor trust); (b) the liquidator shared the collusion allegations with SCC, obtained responses from implicated parties, discussed them in SCC meetings, and had no material amounting to a "reason to believe" collusion existed; (c) mere common ultimate beneficial ownership or assignment/financial flows absent coordinated anti-competitive conduct does not suffice. The Court held the liquidator had fulfilled obligations by inquiring, eliciting responses and placing material before SCC and Adjudicating Authority; there was no cogent record to require reporting as collusion under Regulation 33(3).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Regulation 33(3) requires material basis for "reason to believe"; mere commonalities of ownership or commercial dealings do not automatically establish collusion. Obiter - observations on investigatory sufficiency by liquidator in the circumstances.

Conclusion: No sufficient material existed to form a bona fide "reason to believe" collusion under Regulation 33(3); the allegation of collusion was unsubstantiated on the record and did not justify cancelling proceedings on that ground alone.

OVERALL DISPOSITION (as applied)

1. The Adjudicating Authority correctly entertained the belated bidder's challenge because intervention occurred prior to judicial confirmation and raised arguable, contemporaneous complaints.

2. The private sale process was vitiated by unreasonable timelines, late issuance of the Process Document and an exclusionary EMD regime that impeded meaningful participation and undermined transparency and value maximisation; therefore the public notice and concluded steps were set aside.

3. Prior permission under Regulation 33(2)(d) must be obtained before material terms and modalities of a private sale are fixed; failing that, the process risks being a fait accompli and is impermissible.

4. Allegations of collusion lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to attract Regulation 33(3) intervention; the Liquidator's inquiry and sharing of responses with SCC were adequate on the record.

5. Remedy directed: fresh private Swiss-Challenge sale to be conducted within fixed time (60 days) with open participation, reserve price retained, and EMD fixed reasonably (10% of reserve) to promote participation and value maximisation.

---