E-auction bidding glitch claim after missed highest bid rejected; auction upheld as platform logs showed continuous participation and valid close.

The dominant issue was whether an e-auction should be set aside on the ground that the applicant was unable to submit the highest bid due to an alleged technical glitch on the auction platform. NCLAT held that the allegation was unsubstantiated because there was no contemporaneous complaint evidencing any system failure, and the platform records showed the applicant continuously participated and placed multiple competitive bids up to the last-but-one bid; the successful bidder then outbid by a marginal increment and, with no further bid within the prescribed five-minute window, the auction validly concluded. Consequently, the AA's refusal to quash the e-auction was affirmed and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

i. Whether the e-auctions conducted on 01.05.2025 were liable to be set aside on the ground that the bidder was prevented from submitting higher bids due to an alleged technical glitch on the e-auction portal.

ii. Whether the adjudicating forum erred in declining to order appointment of a technical expert / calling for further technical investigation, including examination of servers, when contemporaneous records indicated continued participation by the bidder.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue i: Setting aside the e-auctions on the plea of "technical glitch" preventing fair participation

Legal framework: The Court treated the governing mechanism of the e-auction as one where bidding continued with automatic extensions in five-minute windows after each last bid, and the sale concluded in favour of the highest bid when no higher bid was placed within the available extended time.

Interpretation and reasoning: The bidder's pleaded case was that after a stated time it suffered technical issues, could not submit enhanced bids, and contacted technical support. The Court examined the bid history/audit trail and found that, even after the alleged onset of glitch, the bidder placed multiple bids in the relevant lots and remained active up to its last bids. The Court further found no contemporaneous complaint, call record, or communication at the critical stage after the last competing bid-when a five-minute window existed for submitting a higher bid. The Court accepted that the bidder's inability to place a higher bid within the stipulated extension period, without proof of portal malfunction at that time, could not justify invalidating an auction conducted as per the announced process. The Court concluded that the narrative of technical failure was belied by the bidder's continued successful bidding activity and the absence of immediate corroboration when the decisive final bid was placed by the successful bidder.

Conclusions: The Court held that the bidder failed to prove any technical glitch affecting its participation at the material time. The e-auctions were not liable to be set aside merely because the bidder did not increase the bid within the available five-minute window; the challenge was treated as an afterthought and insufficient to disturb concluded auction results.

Issue ii: Refusal to appoint a technical expert / order technical examination of the platform

Legal framework: The Court approached expert appointment as contingent on a demonstrated factual foundation suggesting a real technical malfunction requiring technical determination, rather than on bare assertion.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that, where records from the platform showed continuous bidding by the bidder after the claimed malfunction time, and where there was no contemporaneous proof that a higher bid was attempted but rejected by the portal during the decisive window, no basis existed to direct a further technical probe. The Court distinguished reliance placed on other decisions involving expert committees/forensic examination by noting that those matters turned on materially different facts, including contemporaneous actions evidencing an attempted submission or immediate grievance redressal steps; in the present facts, continued participation and lack of timely complaint undermined the need for expert inquiry. The Court therefore found no error in the adjudicating forum's view that appointing a technical expert was unwarranted.

Conclusions: The Court upheld the refusal to appoint a technical expert or order server examination, holding that the evidentiary record did not support the existence of a technical glitch and did not justify reopening the auction process through technical investigation.

---