AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The subject matter of the present application, as argued by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant, is that the application is filed under Section 60(5) of the IBC, read with Rule 11 of the IBC. We see that an order of admission in to CIRP was passed by this Tribunal on 06.08.2019 and eventually Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bhatt was appointed as Liquidator vide Liquidation order dated 13.05.2021. 3. In exercise of his duty as Liquidator, the Respondent/Liquidator made a publication on 28.11.2021 and issued the tender documents for auctioning the properties of the corporate debtor in liquidation. The assets which were proposed to be e-auctioned has three components, first and second items are industrial land and building and the third is plant and machinery. In the present application, we are concerned with Item No. 1 & 2 i.e. industrial land and building. 4. The details of the assets, Proposed Reserve Price, EMD amount, Bid Incremental value, for which the prospective bids under auction were invited by the Respondent, are given herein below:- 5. The schedule of tender is as follows:- 6. Thereafter the process of determining the successful bidder is given, however,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the email dated 10.12.2021, it appears this application was filed before this Tribunal on 10.12.2021, defects were not cured and later on numbered on 13.12.2021 and it is before us today on 14.12.2021 i.e. the day of the e-auction. In the meanwhile, the Liquidator-respondent sent an email to the applicant, on 11.12.2021 at 07:25 P.M., and consented to allow the applicant to participate in the e-auction with respect to the property situated at C-49, Sector-81, Phase-II, GB Nagar, Noida, UP based on eligibility in respect of one property. 12. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant refers to the tender document and stated that Annexure (A-3) at Pg. 37, Clause 1.15 Eligibility Criteria of bidder, which reads as follows:- "1.15 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA OF BIDDERS a) The Individual/Partnership firm/HUF/LLP/group or any company promoted by any other Company/Group should be at least 3 years old with turnover of Rs. 20.00 Cr and Net worth of Rs. 3.00 Cr. For each set of Land & Building. There is no such specific condition for assets class Plant & Machinery and other movable assets. b) Other eligibility criteria is giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 6 Cr or more and turnover criteria of Rs. 40 Cr more who are bidding for two properties and in property 3, there are 18 eligible bidders" 15. In so far as the confusion in email is concerned, he refers to page 120 & 122 (Annexure-4) Bid application form, which is handwritten and stated that there was little confusion as to the letter t+h in one email ID in the manner in which it was written in the two forms. When no receipt was pointed out on 08.12.2021 it was rectified on 09.12.2021. Thereafter, within the timeline applicant-respondent by the email on 09.12.2021 itself. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the applicant. Further, the applicant having not challenged the terms and conditions of the e-auction, the eligibility criteria cannot turn around and ask for modification of the eligibility criteria in his own case alone, as it will amount to re-writing the bidding documents, which cannot be done. Furthermore, he stated that having not challenged the eligibility criteria, the question of allowing the prayer as aforesaid, should not be considered and the application should be dismissed with exemplary cost having wasted the time of the Tribunal that to at the last minute o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Stakeholders Consultation Committee, which is binding on the Liquidator. The faint argument of Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the applicant, that pre-bid qualification will not bind the bidders, is totally misconceived because in all these cases the eligibility criteria of bidders is an essential component for bidding process, otherwise, it will lead to all and sundry participating in the bid process, which will only jeopardise the Liquidator's endeavour to maximise the value of the asset of the corporate debtor in liquidation. We are unable to accept this argument of the counsel for the Applicant. Furthermore, no prejudice has been caused to the applicant because on 09.12.2021 itself the rectification has been done instead of 08.12.2021, by sending the e-mail and no prejudice is caused because on 08.12.2021 the e-mail had not been returned but nevertheless at the request of the applicant on 09.12.2021 morning the mail was re-sent and reply of the applicant was submitted on 09.12.2021 itself. Even otherwise on 11.12.2021 at 07:25 P.M. the Liquidator has confirmed the eligibility of the applicant in respect of one property, based on his turnover and ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismiss the application as absolutely untenable in law with appropriate cost. Taking note of the time and endeavour taken by the Liquidator to bring in the property to sale and the time and energy of the Liquidator and of this Tribunal in answering this misconceived litigation, we are inclined to impose cost at Rs. 9,00,000 (Rupees Nine Lacs only) to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 15 days of this order. 20. Application stands dismissed. ============= Document 1 Sr. Nature of Assets No 1. Industrial 2. Land Proposed EMD Reserve Amount Bid Incremen Price (Rs. (Rs. In tal Value In Lac) Lac) & 525.00 52.00 5.00 Building situated at C-48, Sector 81, Phase-II, GB Nagar, Noida, UP (Land admeasuring 1950 Sq. Mtrs Lease Hold from Noida Authority Lease executed on 27.10.2010- RCC Structure) Industrial Land & 430.00 43.00 5.00 Document 2 Building situated at C-49, Sector-81, Phase-II, GB Nagar, Noida, UP (Land admeasuring 1950 Sq Mtrs Lease Hold from Noida Authority Lease executed on 08.06.2004- RCC Structure) Document 3 ACTIVITY Issua....