TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uing 'necessary Directions'. 3. The Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench - I, Chennai), while passing the 'impugned order' in IA(IBC)/857(CHE)/2021 in CP/1053/IB/2018, among other things, at 'Paragraph No.11 to 18 had made the following observations:- "11. We have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for both the parties. In the present case it is seen that the sufficient opportunities were granted to the Counsel for the Applicant to appear and put forth his argument in the present case and it is also seen that the time and again indulgence was also granted by this Tribunal to the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent on 27.05.2022, 24.06.2022, 05.07.2022, 29.07.2022, 06.09.2022 and 15.09.2022. In spite of the same, the Applicant Counsel has failed to present his case. However, we have heard the argument of the junior counsel for the Applicant. 12. In the present case is not in dispute that time period of three (3) months was granted to the Applicant to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant in para 9 of its Applicant has stated the reason failure of the E-auction dated 18.06.2021 and the same is extracted hereunder; 9. Wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable in the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor and the timely realisation of the aforesaid asset is also essential since any amount of delay will have a serious impact on the value of the assets. As per the object of IBC, 2016 the realisation of the assets of the Corporate Debtor has to be achieved in a time bound manner and holding property under the possession of the Applicant indefinitely will erode its value. Further, more than two years have lapsed since order of Liquidation was passed by this Tribunal and thereby granting any further extension to the Applicant would definitely scuttle the Liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor. 16. At this juncture, we are also persuaded by the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of Dhanalaxmi Bank vs Techno Fab Manufacturings Ltd. in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 777/2021 in which it was held as follows: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. He submits that the Appellant being a secured creditor in the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor has intimated to the Liquidator to realize its asset over which it has exclusive first charge under Section 52(1) (b) of the IBC and in physical possession of the asset. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decisions rendered by the Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter referred (supra) we hereby direct the Applicant viz. Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation Limited to hand over the possession of the assets of the Corporate Debtor which is an immovable property admeasuring about AC 44.65 Cents of Industrial Land at Nidadavole Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, to the Liquidator within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. The above said asset will form part of the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor and the Liquidator is directed to takes pro-active steps to sell the aforesaid property in terms of the provision of IBC, 2016 and IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and distribute the proceeds to the stakeholders in the order of priority as envisaged under Section 52 and 53 of the IBC 2016. 18. Further, it is also made clear that the Applicant will liable to pay sum of Rs. 31,07,500/- as liquidation cost to the Liquidator in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 04.06.2021." and 'disposed of' the said 'Application'. 4. Assailing the 'impugned order' passed by the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issuance of clarification', as to whether the 'Applicant' / 'Appellant' has to pay only, if share of the 'Liquidation Cost' for a sum of Rs.31,07,500/- i.e., 12.43% of Rs.13,07,500/- which is Rs.3,90,000/- or whether the 'Applicant' / 'Appellant' has to pay the wholesome of Rs.31,07,500/- as estimated by the 'Respondent' and also had prayed for an extension of further period of 'six months' from 04.09.2021 by the 'Applicant' / 'Appellant', to complete the sale of the 'Security Interest'. 10. It is not in dispute that, originally, that a time of 'Three Months' was granted to the 'Applicant' / 'Appellant' to complete the sale of the 'Security Interest' and the said 'Three Months' time granted, expired on 05.09.2021. Thereafter, the 'Applicant' / 'Appellant' had issued a 'Caution Notice' on 18.06.2021 in the teeth of Section 19 of the State Financial Corporate Act, 1951 and the 'candid fact' is that 'No Bidder' had taken part in that 'Auction' and hence, the 'Auction' had failed. 11. It transpires that the 'Liquidator' through an 'E-mail' on 06.09.2021 had claimed possession of the property to be handed over to him and that the 'Applicant' / 'Appellant' had failed to sell over the p....