Value maximization in liquidation auctions can justify a fresh e-auction when a bona fide bidder is excluded by platform failure.

In a liquidation sale context, a bona fide bidder was held not to have abandoned the e-auction where the record showed repeated logins, document upload, EMD deposit, and a contemporaneous complaint that the pre-qualification link was unavailable. The tribunal accepted that a technical glitch on the auction platform could not be ruled out, especially without any rebuttal from the platform operator, and set aside the adverse finding on that issue. It further held that a substantially higher offer and deposited amount justified interference with the concluded auction in aid of value maximization, and directed a fresh e-auction at a revised reserve price.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant had abandoned the e-auction process or remained a bona fide and serious bidder; (ii) whether the alleged non-availability of the pre-qualification link was attributable to a technical glitch in the auction platform; and (iii) whether the enhanced offer and deposited amount justified setting aside the concluded auction and directing a fresh e-auction with a revised reserve price.

Issue (i): whether the appellant had abandoned the e-auction process or remained a bona fide and serious bidder?

Analysis: The appellant had earlier participated in the sale process, uploaded documents, deposited the EMD and logged into the auction platform on multiple occasions. The communications from the liquidator referred to registration, upload of documents and EMD deposit, but did not clearly highlight the separate pre-qualification step. The appellant also contacted the BAANKNET support team before the auction closed, complaining that the pre-qualification link was unavailable.

Conclusion: The appellant was not treated as having abandoned the process and was found to have acted as a bona fide participant.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged non-availability of the pre-qualification link was attributable to a technical glitch in the auction platform?

Analysis: The tribunal noted that neither the liquidator nor the adjudicating authority had the technical means to conclusively rule out a platform defect. No affidavit or appearance was made by the auction platform operator to negate the complaint. The appellant's contemporaneous complaint and multiple login attempts supported its case, while the absence of a screenshot or log was held insufficient to dislodge the grievance.

Conclusion: The plea of technical difficulty was accepted and the adverse finding against the appellant on this aspect was set aside.

Issue (iii): whether the enhanced offer and deposited amount justified setting aside the concluded auction and directing a fresh e-auction with a revised reserve price?

Analysis: The appellant had offered a substantially higher amount and later deposited Rs. 54 crores. The tribunal distinguished authorities protecting concluded auctions, holding that those decisions did not bar interference where a genuine participant was excluded by process failure and the higher offer could materially advance value maximization. The liquidator's own stand before the High Court also supported a re-auction at the enhanced reserve price.

Conclusion: The concluded auction was set aside and a fresh e-auction was directed with a reserve price of Rs. 54 crores.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the liquidation sale was ordered to be redone through a fresh competitive process open to eligible bidders, including the appellant, on a revised reserve price.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded liquidation auction may be interfered with where a bona fide bidder is excluded because of a plausible platform-related failure, and a substantially higher offer already secured supports a fresh auction to further the statutory objective of value maximization.

---