Review jurisdiction in liquidation sale proceedings rejected where no error apparent existed and third-party rights had arisen.

The Board was held to have locus standi to seek review because the insolvency framework empowers it to regulate insolvency professionals, receive complaints, investigate misconduct, issue show cause notices and invoke disciplinary action where necessary. The review objection on standing was therefore rejected. The order permitting completion of the auction sale was not reviewable because the record disclosed no suppression, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no recognised ground under review jurisdiction; the sale had already progressed within the liquidation framework and third-party rights had arisen. The review petition was accordingly found to be without merit and the auction-sale facilitation order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India had locus standi to maintain the review petition; (ii) Whether the order permitting completion of the auction sale was liable to be reviewed.

Issue (i): Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India had locus standi to maintain the review petition

Analysis: The review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available only on the recognised grounds for review. The statutory scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 empowers the Board to regulate insolvency professionals, entertain complaints, conduct investigation, issue show cause notices, and proceed through disciplinary machinery where required. Those powers were treated as sufficient to permit the Board to question conduct in the liquidation process.

Conclusion: The objection to locus standi was rejected, and the issue was answered in favour of the Board.

Issue (ii): Whether the order permitting completion of the auction sale was liable to be reviewed

Analysis: The impugned order had only directed the liquidator to receive the balance sale consideration and complete the sale within the stipulated time. The record showed that the auction process had been placed before the Court, that the relevant sale documents and interim proceedings were already on record, and that the sale had proceeded under the liquidation framework with the involvement of the stakeholders consultation committee and the adjudicating authority. The Court found no material suppression, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no ground to reopen an order that had not adjudicated the substantive rights of the parties. Once third-party rights had arisen and the sale process had been completed, interference in review was not warranted.

Conclusion: The order was held not to be reviewable, and the issue was answered against the Board.

Final Conclusion: The review petition was found to be without merit and the challenged auction-sale facilitation order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A review will not lie absent an error apparent or other recognised review ground, and a completed liquidation sale undertaken within the statutory framework will not be reopened merely on allegations that the commercial decision should have been different.

---