AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being held by the respondent - the liquidator. 2. The following facts need no elaboration as they are admitted by all parties to the proceeding of this application: I. The corporate debtor was admitted in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") vide order dated 15.02.2019. One Mr. Nilesh Sharma was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP"). Later on, he was replaced by another Insolvency Professional - Mr. Nitin Jain and he was appointed as the Resolution Professional ("RP"). II. On 11.09.2020, the order of liquidation of the corporate debtor was passed by this Adjudicating Authority because the RP and the CoC did not receive any resolution plan worth to be accepted. The RP was appointed as the liquidator. III. The process of liquidation of the corporate debtor proceeded as per the rules. On 05.01.2021, the liquidator published the sale notice for the e-auction of the corporate debtor. IV. On 15.01.2021, the liquidator received the summons from the Enforcement Directorate ("ED") informing him not to proceed with the sale of the assets of the corporate debtor as the ED was to attach the assets under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period to be counted for purposes of the balance payment, the liquidator received the order passed by the ED whereby ED has passed an order of provisional attachment on the assets of the corporate debtor under section 5(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002 and the liquidator filed the second writ petition in Hon'ble Delhi High Court challenging the attachment order. 5. On 08.12.2021, the applicant made an application in that writ petition requesting the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to direct the liquidator not to forfeit the EMD till the writ petition is being heard and decided on merit. The matter was also mentioned before this Adjudicating Authority. This Adjudicating Authority directed the liquidator not to disburse the amount to the creditors of the corporate debtor till the writ petition is finally decided. 6. On 15.12.2021, the Hon'ble Single Judge of Hon'ble Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition directing for removal of the provisional attachment of the ED. 7. On 17.12.2021, the liquidator filed before this Adjudicating Authority IA/8(AHM)2022 for directions to the applicant to deposit the balance sale consideration forthwith. 8. On 21.12.2021, the ED challenged the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ritten notes of submission. 13. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sourabh Soparkar for the applicant submitted that the applicant participated in the bidding process in response to the sale notice dated 19.03.2021. By that time the ED has not issued provisional attachment order. The liquidator received the summons from ED on 15.01.2021. But by order dated 17.03.2021, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court allowed the liquidator to proceed with the e-auction of the corporate debtor which was completed on 10.04.2021. Learned senior counsel submitted that by that time there was no provisional attachment order passed by the ED. This fact shows that the applicant took part in the e-auction when there was no provisional attachment by the ED and the effect of summons issued by the ED to the liquidator had done away with by the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Learned counsel also pointed out that the sale notice having terms and conditions is on record wherein the liquidator by reproducing the provisions of section 32A of the IBC, 2016, and by reproducing the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Manish Kumar vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 26 of 2020) has given the impressio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding to learned senior counsel that, in fact, the applicant delayed the entire process of confirmation of sale by filing some application or the other. This Adjudicating Authority has already approved the e-auction. Meantime, the order of provisional attachment came to be passed. Now, the applicant cannot turn around and contend that he does not wish to pay the balance sale price. 16. Learned senior counsel also submitted that in the proceeding before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the applicant had intervened and requested to permit the withdrawal from e-auction but the applicant failed and now the applicant is before this Adjudicating for the same relief. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that this Adjudicating Authority by order dated 08.09.2021 confirmed the sale as a going concern. If this Adjudicating Authority allows the applicant to withdraw from the process then it will be amounting to review or recall its earlier order for which this Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction. According to learned senior counsel, the applicant now cannot be permitted to withdraw from the e-auction which is completed in all respect. This application is not maintainable. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer, Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector found that neither the possession of the sand block was handed over to the appellant nor the excavation of sand from the said sand block was done, at the instance of the Collector, the file for grant of refund was being processed. It further appears, that the file in transit was misplaced and on this ground the appellant was denied the refund. It could thus be seen, in these admitted facts, that the denial on the part of the respondents to refund the amount to the appellant can, by no stretch of imagination, be called as reasonable. The action of the respondents, in denying the refund of the amount of the appellant, when the respondents themselves had failed to give possession of the sand block and as a result of which the appellant could not excavate the sand, would smack of arbitrariness. In this premise, we find that the High Court was not justified in relegating the appellant to file a suit. 15. In view of the undisputed position, that in spite of the appellant being the highest bidder and in spite of him depositing the entire amount of auction, since the possession of the sand block was not given to him for reasons n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Writ Petition (C) No. 26 of 2020) thereby gave the impression to all prospective bidders that the assets of the corporate debtor are immune to the proceeding that would be taken under the PMLA Act, 2002. 22. It is also admitted fact on record that when the sale notice was published and bids were called, ED had not attached any assets then e-auction was held on 09.04.2021 whereas provisional attachment came to be passed thereafter on 02.12.2021. So, this situation is also not attributable to the applicant who is the successful bidder herein. 23. Learned senior counsel for the liquidator submitted that the applicant tried to withdraw from the process even before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court but having failed approached this Adjudicating Authority. However, it is clear from the record that, in fact, the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 22.02.2022 permitted the applicant to take proper proceedings for withdrawal in the following words : "....Ms. Maneesha Dhir, learned counsel for the auction purchaser states that her client wishes to exit by withdrawing its bid from the e-auction process of the Corporate Debtor. The statement made by Ms. Dhir is taken on record and accept....