TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad [Court-II] NCLT by its order dated 21st June, 2024 partly allowed an application I.A. No.364 of 2023, filed in CP (IB) No.66 of 2017, which was filed by the respondent under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 IBC read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. In the process, the NCLT directed as follows: i) *** ii) Applicant is exonerated from paying interest charged on balance consideration by respondent. Respondent not to charge interest on balance consideration at this stage. iii) *** iv) Prayer for removal of encroachment and other issues are rejected. v) Liquidator is directed not to forfeit the EMD by the applicant at this stage. vi) *** vii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The respondent submitted a bid to acquire the subject land and enclosed a demand draft of Rs.20 crore towards upfront payment. It emerged as the sole bidder. Faced with such situation, the appellant on 3rd December, 2022 issued a fresh e-auction sale notice along with tender documents. It is not too clear as to how many bids the appellant received pursuant to the fresh notice. In any event, certain concerns were raised by the respondent which allegedly the appellant did not address. On the contrary, on 29th December, 2022, the appellant issued a Sale Confirmation Advice declaring the respondent as the successful bidder for the subject land at Rs.325 crore. Rs.20 crore deposited on 1st December, 2022 was treated as an Earnest Money Deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling an appeal and applications for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal after rectification of defects. Useful reference may be made to the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma (2008) 8 SCC 321. 10. Having regard to the fact that the appellant despite limitations had done all that was necessary for filing of the appeal within 30 days, and then 15 days, i.e., within the prescribed and extended period of limitation, respectively, as well as dependency of the appellant on its lawyers who, in turn, were dependent on their clerk to re-file the appeal, and there were some missteps contributing to the present situation, coupled with the fact that the issue sought to be raised by the....