TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ership relating to the subject properties in original, give the proof of liabilities settled in respect of the subject properties including electricity, MIDC, Land Revenue, labour, telephone, water, Panchayat tax, arrears of property tax, etc and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession in the subject properties to the Petitioner along with a Possession Letter; b. Respondent No. 2 has failed and neglected to execute the sale deeds in respect of the subject properties in the Petitioner's favour, Respondent No. 2 is in breach of the orders dates 30.06.2016 and 28.09.2015; thus to pay interest to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 2 from 12.04.2013 till date on the sum of Rs.2.70 crores in light of the aforesaid breach; c. Respondent No. 2 to forthwith execute sale deeds in the Petitioner's favour; d. In the event the Tribunal is of the opinion that the Respondent No. 1 is also required to execute sale deeds conveying all right, title and interest in the Petitioner's favour, then this Tribunal be pleased to order and direct Respondents No. 1 & 2 to forthwith execute the sale deeds in the Petitioner's favour. e. Pending the hearing and final disposa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akhs. Copies of the correspondence qua the bidding process including the Petitioner's bids are annexed as Exhibits D and E. 9. By a letter dated 26.03.2013, Respondent No.2 accepted the Petitioner's bid as the highest bid and accordingly, called upon the Petitioner to pay the balance portion of Rs.2.40 crores. A copy of Respondent No. 2's letter dated 26.03.2013 is annexed as Exhibit F. 10. The said cheque of Petitioner of Rs.30 Lakhs was encashed on 27.03.2013. 11. On 12.04.2013, the Petitioner made a RTGS payment of Rs.2.40 crores to Respondent No.2. 12. By an order on 15.04.2013, the BIFR accepted the Petitioner's bid of Rs. 2.70 crores as the highest bid and the same was also confirmed by an order dated 07.11.2013. Copies of the orders dated 15.04.2013 and 07.11.2013 are annexed as Exhibit G and H. 13. By a letter dated 07.06.2013, Respondent No.2 recorded, that in terms of BIFR's Order dated 15.04.2013, the Petitioner's bid was accepted as the highest bid; that the money of Rs.2.70 crores was to be utilized towards meeting statutory liabilities, advertisement costs and the cost of the valuation conducted by ARCIL and the balance was to be shared by the secured c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication No. 42/BC/2015 (MA No. 42 of 2015) seeking a direction against the Respondents requiring them to execute sale deeds conveying the subject properties in the Petitioner's favour. 21. On 28.9.2015, by an Order in MA No.42 of 2015, the BIFR confirmed the sale of the subject properties in the Petitioner's favour. A copy of the order dated 28.09.2015 is annexed as Exhibit N. 22. On 30.06.2016, by BIFR's order in MA No. 42 of 2015, Respondent Nos.2 was directed to execute deeds of conveyance conveying the subject properties in the Petitioner's favour. 23. The Petitioner submits that there has been no challenge by Respondent No.1 to the BIFR's Order dated 30.6.2016. As such, Respondent No.1 can have no objection whatsoever to Respondent No.2 executing the sale deeds conveying all right, title and interest of the subject properties in the Petitioner's favour and is bound to comply with the Order dated 30.06.2016. It is only Respondent No.2 who is required to execute the sale deeds. This is because, the subject properties were acquired through a statutorily recognized and mandated public auction under the SICA, it was only Respondent No.2 acting as Respondent No.1's operat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proach the Hon'ble NCLT for registration of the case and inform Respondent No.2 of the same for it to proceed further in the matter. A copy of Respondent No. 2's letter dated 10.03.2017 is annexed as Exhibit Q. 28. In the given circumstances, the Petitioner states and submits that Respondent No. 2 is in breach of the BIFR's order dated 30.06.2016 and the same is causing injustice to the Petitioner. Therefore, this is a fit case for this Tribunal to exercise its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules and pass an order and direction directing Respondent No. 2 to execute the sale deeds annexed as Exhibit R and S in the Petitioner's favour with such modifications as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper. Submissions made by the Ld. Counsel of the Respondent No. 2: 29. Respondent No.2 states that Section 252 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), provide for amendment to SICA Repeal Act in the manner as specified in the Eighth Schedule to IBC. Consequently, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) stands dissolved and any appeal preferred to the Appellate Aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact that Petitioner approached NCLT after repeal of SICA Act does not justify its action. 34. Further, the Petitioner in the given case is a company which had participated in a public auction for sale of subject properties of Respondent No.1 who has approached to BIFR to be declared as sick industrial company. Respondent No.2 has been appointed as the operating agency. The said public auction was arranged by Respondent No.2 and since highest bid was provided by Petitioner, the same was accepted and confirmed by BIFR vide its order dated 15.04.2013. Vide orders dated 28.09.2015 and 30.06.2016, sale of subject properties was confirmed by BIFR with a direction to Respondent No.2 to execute sale deeds in respect of subject properties of Respondent No.1 in favour of Petitioner in its capacity as operating agency. 35. Based on the above facts, it is clear the Petitioner here seeks execution of sale deed and transfer the Right, title and interest in favour of Petitioner, which being in the nature of specific performance, cannot be sought under Companies Act, 2013 before NCLT. 36. Respondent No.2 states that neither the Section 424 nor Section 434 deals with any provision in re....