AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s grievances, being aggrieved as against the impugned order dated 23.09.2025, that has been passed on IA No. 1903 (CHE) / 2024 in CP (IB) / 548 CHE / 2017, as it has been rendered by the Ld. NCLT, Chennai, and as a consequence of the impugned order, the reliefs sought by the Appellant by preferring of the Interlocutory Application seeking for the refund of the EMD deposit has been declined to be extended to the Appellant. 2. The factual backdrop under which the instant Company Appeal arises, are that there was a proceedings which were held under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, which was carried by the Operational Creditor i.e. M/s. Mithesa Traders, as against the Corporate Debtor, which was numbered as CP (IB) / 548 (CHE) / 2017, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the Clause 11 of the Tender notice has been formulated it is arbitrary and against the interest of the prospective Applicants, who responded to the Auction notice, which was published by the Respondent, inviting the bids for the purposes of participation in the proposal as extended by the said Auction notice dated 25.08.2023. 7. At this juncture itself, before we venture upon the merits of the other issues as proposed to be argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. We make it very clear, that the offer, which was made by the E-Auction notice on 25.08.2023 will amount to have been accepted unconditionally by the Appellant having accepted and responded to it, without raising any objection to it. In particular to the challenge raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on 25.08.2023, he cannot be permitted to revert back and now submit that the Clause 11 as contained in Auction notice was arbitrary. 10. The facts, which had come on record and as argued by the Ld. Counsel too for the Appellant that in pursuance to the aforesaid Auction notice as it was published by the Respondent, the Appellant had deposited the EMD of Rs. 1,10,02,052 and had submitted the Tender Form on 11.09.2023. 11. As a consequence thereto, the E-Auction was conducted on 13.09.2023 but, it is the case of the Appellant and as observed in the impugned order itself that the Appellant did not respond to proceed with his bid during the E-Auction process held on 13.09.2023. The Appellants case for not participating was that, upon e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that, will constitute and would form to be the part and parcel of the Auction notice, rather, would be in extension to the terms and conditions of the E-Auction notice and the tender documents cannot be read in isolation governing the act of the Appellant, because that itself was followed by the Bidders including Appellant in compliance of the conditions that were given in the E-Auction notice of 25.08.2023, as the Auction notice and Tender documents both have co-existence to achieve a common object to ensure completion of the bidding process. Either of them have no independent existence. 15. Even it is for the time being it is presumed to accept what the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted, it is not at all sustainable, particul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount and this is the principle, which has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in yet another Judgment of NTPC v. Ashok Kumar Singh, (2015) 4 SCC 252 which permits forfeiture due to breach of condition by purchaser, where it has provided that the forfeiture of the Earnest Money, where the Agreement contains of a Forfeiture Clause and there is a breach in the condition on part of the person intending to participate in the bidding process, the consequences of the forfeiture will automatically follow, since would be a binding accepted condition, since having voluntarily deposited the EMD. 19. For the reason that has been assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned order, exclusively on the ground that the Appellant, had not responded by s....