Auction purchaser bound by 'as is where is' terms; withdrawn relief request cannot be revived without liberty.

A liquidator's post-sale application seeking completion of a going-concern sale and extensive reliefs was found not maintainable because an earlier, similar request had been withdrawn without liberty to revive it, giving that withdrawal finality and barring re-agitation through a later application. The pending challenges to the auction also meant the sale could not be treated as finally completed at that stage. Separately, an auction purchaser who bid on an "as is where is", "as is what is", "as is how is" and "without recourse" basis was bound by the auction terms and the caveat emptor principle, and could not additional concessions beyond the express bid conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the liquidator's application reporting completion of sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern and seeking 41 reliefs and concessions was maintainable in view of the earlier withdrawn application for similar reliefs. (ii) Whether the auction purchaser could seek reliefs and concessions beyond the express terms of the e-auction notice and process document, where the sale was on an "as is where is" and related disclaimer basis.

Issue (i): Whether the liquidator's application reporting completion of sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern and seeking 41 reliefs and concessions was maintainable in view of the earlier withdrawn application for similar reliefs.

Analysis: The application was held to be barred because the successful bidder had earlier sought similar reliefs and had withdrawn that application without liberty to re-agitate the same claims. The withdrawal attained finality and operated as a procedural bar to a later attempt to obtain the same relief through the liquidator's application. The pending challenges to the auction sale also meant that completion of sale could not be declared at that stage.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and the objection to its rejection was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction purchaser could seek reliefs and concessions beyond the express terms of the e-auction notice and process document, where the sale was on an "as is where is" and related disclaimer basis.

Analysis: The sale notice and process document made the sale subject to "as is where is", "as is what is", "as is how is", "whatever there is" and "without recourse" conditions. By participating in the auction, the bidder was bound by those terms and was expected to undertake due diligence. The doctrine of caveat emptor applied, and the bidder could not require the liquidator to secure additional concessions outside the bid conditions. The pending proceedings challenging the auction sale further made such clarifications inappropriate.

Conclusion: The bidder was bound by the auction terms and was not entitled to the sought reliefs and concessions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned rejection of the liquidator's application was upheld on the grounds of finality of the earlier withdrawal, the binding nature of the auction conditions, and the pending challenges to the sale.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that withdraws a request for the same relief without liberty cannot re-agitate it indirectly, and an auction purchaser who accepts a sale on an "as is where is" basis is bound by the auction terms and cannot claim additional concessions outside those terms.

---