Concluded liquidation auction cannot be set aside absent fraud, collusion, or fundamental procedural irregularity.

A concluded liquidation e-auction for additional land could not be set aside merely to seek a higher price, absent fraud, collusion, or a fundamental procedural irregularity. The reserve price had to be assessed on the correct sale base, and the earlier consideration could not be treated as relating only to the leasehold portion when the earlier lot also included freehold components. The successful bidder, as an aggrieved person, had locus standi to challenge the direction for a fresh auction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The article states that a valid auction cannot be displaced by a later preference for private sale or a higher bid expectation, and that the successful purchaser remained entitled to consequential transfer steps.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge the order directing a fresh auction of the additional land. (ii) Whether the direction for a fresh auction and the setting aside of the concluded e-auction were sustainable in the absence of fraud, collusion, or material procedural irregularity.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge the order directing a fresh auction of the additional land.

Analysis: The appeal was filed by a party aggrieved by the direction to conduct a fresh auction of the very property for which it had emerged as the successful bidder. An aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is entitled to challenge such an order.

Conclusion: The appellant had locus standi to maintain the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction for a fresh auction and the setting aside of the concluded e-auction were sustainable in the absence of fraud, collusion, or material procedural irregularity.

Analysis: The reserve price fixed for the additional land was held to have been wrongly assessed by treating the earlier sale consideration as if it related only to the leasehold portion, whereas the earlier lot included both leasehold and freehold components. On the correct computation, the reserve price was not shown to be irrational or lower than the earlier auction value. The concluded auction had been conducted publicly, the process had not been shown to be collusive or fraudulent, and there was no fundamental procedural defect warranting interference. A valid auction cannot be cancelled merely on an expectation of obtaining a higher price, and private sale could not be imposed without satisfying the statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The direction to hold a fresh auction was unsustainable, and the successful e-auction purchaser was entitled to have the sale certificate issued in its favour.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order restored the validity of the auction process for the additional land, rejected the challenge to the successful bidder's entitlement, and left the auction purchaser entitled to consequential transfer steps.

Ratio Decidendi: A duly conducted and concluded liquidation auction cannot be set aside merely because a higher price is later contemplated, unless fraud, collusion, or a fundamental procedural irregularity is established; reserve-price assessment must be based on the correct sale base and statutory auction norms.

---