AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial ) ] Few facts which necessarily require consideration are that the Appellant in the Company Appeal in question, has put a challenge to the impugned order dated 27.01.2021, as it has been rendered in IA/587/IB/2020 in IBA/257/2019 filed under Section 33(2) of I & B Code, which has resulted into the passing of an order of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, (M/s. MK Cables and Conductors Pvt. Ltd.) and appointed Respondent No.1 as liquidator to the Corporate Debtor. The backdrop on which the said order has been put to challenge, are that, it is contended by the Appellant that, the Corporate Debtor had borrowed a sum of Rs.10.76 crores from Respondent No.2 on 30.03.2011 and on 14.03.2014, had mortgaged the factory premises at SIPCOT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent No.2 wrongly described the extent of the property in the auction sale notice which resulted in drastic reduction in the market value of the property and the property worth Rs.25 crore was sold by the 2nd Respondent in the 10th Auction Sale proceedings, at a throwaway price of Rs.5.22 crores to one M/s. Drill Jig Bushing Company (Madras) Private Limited. The Appellant contends that, dissatisfied with the Auction Sale proceedings as it was held on the basis of the 10th auction sale notice dated 04.05.2018, he preferred an application before the Learned DRT II, Chennai, who passed an order in SA No.126/2018 dated 13.12.2018, setting aside the auction sale. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid Order of 13.12.2018 as it was passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tentions, on the grounds that the Corporate Debtor is not a going concern since 2015 without taking into account the fact that the operations of the Corporate Debtor had stopped since 2015 because 2nd Respondent has taken symbolic possession under SARFAESI Act. The Appellant contends that the duty of RP is to maximise the value of the Corporate Debtor during CIRP and for this, he should have taken all steps to bring land & buildings, which were auctioned off under SARFAESI Proceedings and which were stayed by Hon'ble High Court, under his control, so as to enhance the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and that the Resolution Professional has miserably failed in this respect and instead, filed an application for liquidation i.e, IA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allenges are that Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 have colluded to push the Corporate Debtor into liquidation with the sole intent of selling the assets of Corporate Debtor, Respondent No.2 did not issue a single EoI, application for liquidation was moved with the sole purpose of lifting the embargo of moratorium on sale of Corporate Debtor's land through SARFAESI Proceedings, and that if liquidation order is set aside, there is a chance of saving the land of Corporate Debtor from auction and consequently, of Successful Resolution of the Insolvency of the Corporate Debtor which is the objective of I & B Code. The Respondent No.1, the liquidator in his counter has stated that the order of liquidation was passed well in accordance with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further submitted that since the liquidation process has already been completed, the Successful Auction Purchaser, has been handed over the possession of the property of the Corporate Debtor and the application under Section 54 for closure of the liquidation process and the dissolution of the Corporate Debtor is pending consideration, nothing much survives to be resolved and that nothing survives in the instant Company Appeal as of now, which could at all be required to be considered to be addressed by this Appellate Tribunal on merits. To press his point, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to the Judgment of 01.02.2021, as it was rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....records as it was proceeded by the bank has been kept outside the liquidation process proceedings, nothing much survives in the appeal to be addressed on merits. The fact of completion of the process of liquidation is not a fact which has been disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant in his notes of submission. Rather he has submitted that the Hon'ble High Court had set aside the order of DRAT in RA (SA) No.7/2019, by way of its order dated 01.02.2021; but the subsequent proceedings in DRAT and his challenge to the order of DRAT in CRP No.787/2021, before Hon'ble High Court went against him primarily because the liquidator (formerly RP) chose to press for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and withdrew his Writ Petition from Ho....