AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Shradha Narayan, Advocates for Intervenor JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These two Appeals arises out of Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor - 'Haridwar Iron and Ispat Rollings Ltd.' and having been heard together are being decided by this common judgment. 2. 'Haridwar Iron and Ispat Rollings Ltd.' was admitted to insolvency by order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi. No Resolution Plan having been approved, the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was directed by the Adjudicating Authority on 17.09.2019. The Respondent was appointed as Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor. Liquidator has conducted e-auction of assets of the Corporate Debtor on six occasions. On 25.09.2020 fifth sale notice was issued for auction to be conducted on 12.10.2020. The Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 318-319 of 2022 - 'Chhota' participated in the e-auction for purchase of plant and machinery of the Corporate Debtor and declared as highest bidder. Liquidator, on 22.10.2020, issued letter of intent to the Appellant 'Chhota'. 3. Sixth sale notice was issued on 11.11.2020 for purchase of land and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Corporate Debtor by the purchaser - 'M/s Laxman Enterprises'. In the said application order dated 07.04.2021 was passed as noted above which order was communicated to the Appellant but no action was taken by the Appellant. In the I.A. of the Liquidator further order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 11.08.2021 directing the Liquidator to serve notice on auction purchaser giving him a final chance to take the machinery within a weeks' time, otherwise the amount paid by the auction purchaser was to be forfeited and fresh auction to be conducted. The order dated 11.08.2021 was communicated to the Appellant on 12.08.2021. 7. An I.A. No. 3797 of 2021 was preferred by the Appellant for recall of order dated 11.08.2019 and certain other directions. The Liquidator replied to the I.A. On 28.01.2022, the I.A. was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority. Another I.A. No. 754 of 2022 was filed by the Appellant for recall of order dated 28.01.2022, which was dismissed on 16.02.2022. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 318-319 of 2022 were filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 28.01.2022 and 16.02.2022. 8. Now coming to the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.728 of 2022....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....did not remove the plant and machinery inspite of Sale Certificate dated 02.02.2021 and Letter of Possession issued to the Appellant. The sale of the plant and machinery was made as per the terms and conditions and e-auction document on "as is where is", "as is what is", and "whatever there is basis", hence, no grievance could have been raised by the Appellant regarding the plant and machinery. It is submitted that the application dated 19.02.2021 filed by the Appellant was only to delay the process and there was no truth in the allegations made in the application. It is submitted that in pursuance of order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority sale in favour of the Appellant has already been cancelled and assets distributed. 12. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for Applicant 'Sunhill Proptech Private Limited' submits that Applicant be permitted to intervene in the matter, who are ready to take the plant and machinery for a total consideration of Rs.4.25 crore. It is submitted that the plant and machinery be allowed to be taken by the Applicant on payment of Rs.4.25 crore as per the schedule as mentioned in the application. 13. Shri Abhishek Anan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....electricity / water charges etc., outstanding as on date or yet to fall due in respect of the relevant asset should be ascertained by the E-Auction process applicant and would be borne by the successful bidder." 18. The Appellant participated in the e-auction after due diligence and was declared the highest bidder. Sale Certificate and Letter of Possession was issued to the Appellant dated 02.02.2021. The Appellant requested the Liquidator to depute some suitable person for taking the possession which was deputed by the Liquidator. It was only on 19.02.2021 that allegation of missing of some parts of plant and machinery was raised by the Appellant. Police Complaint was also filed by the Appellant which was not even registered since police did not find any offence to be registered and enquired. Terms and condition of the Sale Certificate in Para 5 and Para 9 are as follows:- "5. From the date of issue of Sale Certificate, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Purchaser shall hold the Asset sold at its sole risk and cost as regards any loss or damage to the Asset by fire or any other natural calamities or due to theft, or from any other cause whatsoever, which sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al requests made by the Liquidator and directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority, we see no fault in the direction of the Adjudicating Authority giving last opportunity to the Appellant to remove the plant and machinery within one week by order dated 11.08.2021, failing which the auction sale was to be deemed cancelled. The Liquidator had no option but to comply with the order dated 11.08.2021 and has consequently cancelled the auction in favour of the Appellant. With regard to the cancellation of the auction held in favour of the Appellant, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The auction in favour of the Appellant 'Chhota' rightly stood cancelled. 21. Now coming to the application filed by 'Sunhill Proptech Private Limited' where the Applicant has offered to take the plant and machinery for an amount of Rs.4.25 crore i.e. an amount higher to the amount on which plant and machinery was auctioned to the Appellant. In the application itself the applicant has in Para 11 made following averments:- "11. That the present applicant based on the due diligence, which has been done by it, based on market conditions mak....