IBBI challenge to liquidator's auction sale decisions and SCC oversight upheld as maintainable, but review dismissed on merits

IBBI's locus standi to maintain a review petition under s.114 CPC read with O.47 r.1 was upheld because the IBC empowers it to regulate insolvency professionals and investigate complaints, issue show-cause notices, and initiate disciplinary action; hence it could seek review against orders impacting a liquidator's conduct, and the objection to maintainability was rejected. On the merits of review, the HC held that liquidation sale decisions were taken through the duly constituted SCC under the Liquidation Process Regulations and were subject to oversight and orders of the NCLT/NCLAT; absent any SCC or NCLT interjection and with auction-related material already on record, no fraud or suppression warranting review was shown, and the review petition was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the insolvency regulator has locus standi to maintain a review petition against an order passed in a writ proceeding to which it was not a party, when the order concerns completion of a liquidation sale conducted by a liquidator.

(ii) Whether the order directing the liquidator to receive the balance sale consideration within the auction timeline and issue a sale certificate is liable to be reviewed/recalled on grounds of alleged suppression of material facts, fraud, and alleged failure to maximize value in liquidation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Locus standi of the insolvency regulator to seek review

Legal framework: The Court examined that the review was invoked under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and also considered the insolvency statute provisions detailing the regulator's powers and functions, including its authority to regulate insolvency professionals and to act upon complaints through investigation, show-cause, and disciplinary mechanisms.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the insolvency statute expressly empowers the regulator to oversee and regulate the working and practices of insolvency professionals/liquidators and to take action upon complaints through investigation and disciplinary processes. Given this supervisory and regulatory mandate, the Court held it would be incorrect to conclude that the regulator has no standing to approach the Court in review when the conduct of the liquidator and the liquidation sale process forms the backdrop of the challenged order.

Conclusion: The Court held that the insolvency regulator has locus standi to file the review petition; the issue was answered in the affirmative.

Issue (ii): Whether grounds for review/recall were made out to interfere with the order permitting completion of sale

Legal framework: The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited and requires demonstration of jurisdictional error, illegality/material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction, or a mistake/error apparent on the face of the record. The Court also examined the liquidation framework discussed in the judgment, including the role of the stakeholders' consultation committee, the time-bound nature of liquidation, and the defined oversight roles of the stakeholders' committee and the adjudicating authority.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the challenged order as one that merely enabled completion of the auction transaction within the stipulated timeline on the purchaser's undertaking to comply with auction conditions and on the liquidator's consent to receive payment. The Court emphasized that the order under review did not adjudicate substantive rights; it only facilitated conclusion of sale in terms of the existing auction conditions.

On allegations of suppression/fraud and non-disclosure, the Court found that the material records relevant to the auction and proceedings concerning the liquidator were, in fact, placed before the Court in the writ proceeding through documents filed by the liquidator. Consequently, the assertion that the order was obtained by withholding relevant facts was not accepted.

On the regulator's contention that acceptance of the balance price resulted in failure to maximize value, the Court held that commercial and sale-process decisions in liquidation operate within the demarcated framework of decisions taken in the stakeholders' consultation committee and the adjudicating authority's oversight. The Court noted that neither the stakeholders' consultation committee nor the adjudicating authority had found fault with, or interjected in, the sale process as conducted. In these circumstances, the Court held that it was not open to revisit the completed sale through a review of the writ order that simply permitted completion of the transaction within the auction timeline, particularly after third-party rights had been created through payment, issuance of sale certificate, and completion of the sale process.

Conclusion: The Court held that no ground for review was made out and that the order was not liable to be reviewed/recalled; the issue was answered in the negative. The review petition was dismissed, while clarifying that dismissal would not prevent the regulator from initiating action against the liquidator under its statutory powers.

---