TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity has rejected the IAs filed by the Appellant. Aggrieved by which order these Appeal(s) have been filed. 2. Facts and issued raised in these Appeal(s) are similar, it is sufficient to refer to facts and pleadings in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1927 of 2025 for deciding both the Appels. Order dated 02.12.2025 in IA No.2204 of 2025, which is challenged in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1927 of 2025 arises out of e-auction conducted on 01.05.2025 for assets belonging to Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan, the Bankrupt, whereas order dated 02.12.2025 passed in IA No.2202 of 2025, which is the subject matter of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1945 of 2025 arises out of e-auction conducted on 01.05.2025 of the assets belonging to Mr. Farah Khan, the Bankrupt. 3. Brief facts of the case in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1927 of 2025 are: (i) One Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan was declared Bankrupt and Respondent No.2 was appointed as Bankruptcy Trustee. The Bankruptcy Trustee issued advertisement on 15.04.2025 in two newspapers for sale of assets of Mr. Waseem Ahmad Khan. The Appellant submitted required documents for Expression of Interest ("EoI") and received confirmation regarding approvi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.1 to submit a detailed technical report and to conduct the re-auction. (vi) On 13.05.2025, notices were issued in IA No.2204 of 2025. Replies were filed by both Respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposing the application. The Appellant filed another IA No.2351 of 2025 on 14.05.2025 seeking to restrain Respondent No.2 from concluding the sale and issue Sale Certificate. Another application - IA No.2534 of 2025 was filed by the Appellant on 24.05.2025 seeking appointment of a Technical Expert at the cost of the Appellant to examine the servers of both the Respondents and prepare a detailed Report. (vii) The Adjudicating Authority after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order on 02.12.2025 dismissing IA No.2204 of 2025 and also dismissing other two applications - IA No.2351 of 2025 and IA No.2534 of 2025. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order considered the submissions of the Applicant and replies submitted by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and came to the conclusion that Applicant failed to prove that there was any technical glitch in participation in the e-auction held on 01.05.2025. Challenging the order rejecting the IAs filed by the Applicant, this Appeal h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which prayer was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority. Conducting of e-auction on e- platform consists of several technical steps and Technical Report was essential to examine the grievance raised by the Appellant regarding the technical glitch encountered during the e-auction process. The Applicant in the application has submitted that immediately after he encountered technical glitch, he called the contact person given in the document. The various calls made and the answers given were already detailed in the application filed by the Appellant, which proves that the technical problem was faced by the Appellant and the Appellant contacted the concerned person immediately, but the grievance of the Appellant was not redressed, due to which the Appellant was unable to increase the bid amount with its competitor. The answer was received that everything is working fine. The screenshots and facts were already filed along with the application, which clearly proves the case of the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.253/2025 in Karix Mobile Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., where the Delhi High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itch. The Adjudicating Authority being satisfied from the materials on record held that there was no question of appointing any Technical Expert for submitting a Report. Respondent No.1, which is the platform, which conducted the e-auction has already submitted a detailed Report in the reply. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed several videos and screenshots. In the reply, which was submitted by Respondent No.2 to the application - IA No.2204 of 2025, detailed observations were made with regard to videos. Referring to paragraph 47 of the reply of Respondent No.2, it is submitted that videos indicate that person is in a car and the noise of Honking and traffic noise can be heard. No glitch on the platform has been identified or alleged in the said video. It is submitted that auction was conducted in accordance with due process and the Appellant, who did not increase the bid within five minutes from the last bid, which was submitted by the other bidder, the Appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the auction, which has been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. We need to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for Lot No. I concluded, the technical issues with Lot No. 2 appeared to be temporarily resolved, allowing the Applicant to resume bidding. The Applicant continued bidding on Lot No. 2 for approximately 45 minutes, progressively increasing its bids. 21. However, at 5:18 PM, when attempting to place a bid of Rs. 6,78,60,000/- for Lot No. 2, the Applicant again encountered technical issues that prevented the submission of this bid, and the auction was abruptly closed." 9. In paragraph 22 of the application, the Appellant has given the time when the Applicant submitted his bid. The Applicant's claim that last bid for Lot No.1 was submitted at 04:17 PM by the Applicant, increasing the bid by Rs. 10 lakhs and making the bid to Rs. 3,83 crores. The other bidder increased the bid by Rs. 10 lakhs, making it to Rs. 3.93 crores and the Applicant was unable to increase and submit the higher bid, due to glitch. With regard to Lot No.2, the Appellant submitted that it increased bid at 05:17 PM of Rs. 10 lakhs, making the bid to Rs. 6.78 crores, whereas at 05:18 PM, the Applicant was unable to submit the bid due to technical failure. The application filed by the Appellant was replied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.2, the Applicant was required to increase his bid within stipulated five minutes window, which he failed to do. To increase the bid further or not is the choice of each bidder. All bidders are bound to exercise the option of higher bid within timeline and if not done the auction process will conclude on the highest bid. In paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority had made following observations: "20. The facts as pleaded by parties and record reveals that the applicant placed the bid after 3:52 pm and thereafter continued to participate in the bidding process, progressively increasing the bid until 4:16 pm for Lot No.1 and further till 5:12 pm for Lot No.2. Hence the contention now raised by the applicant is contrary to the factual position, as the bid history clearly shows the continues participation. When the successful bidder placed the bid at 4:20:38 pm for Rs. (Lot 1) and at 5:13:54 pm for Lot 2 the applicant was required to increase his bid within the stipulated five-minute window, which he failed to do. To increase bid further is the choice of each bidder. It is faceless auction platform. All bidders are bound to exercise the opti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....51/- and the bid was not increased by the Appellant within five minutes window. With respect to Lot No.2 after 03:53 PM, the Appellant submitted 19 bids. The last bid submitted by the Appellant was at 05:12 PM of Rs. 6,53,60,600/-. M/s Bahl Paper Mills Ltd. submitted bid at 05:13 PM of Rs. 6,63,60,000/-. There being no increase in the bid within five minutes, the bid of Bahl Paper Mills Ltd. for Lot No.2 was confirmed. The observations and findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraphs 20 and 21 as noted above are based on relevant materials, which were brought on record. We have noticed the submission of the Appellant and the grounds taken by the Appellant in its IA No.2204 of 2025, which pleaded that after 03:52 PM, the Appellant faced several technical glitches. The Appellant also pleaded that in its application at paragraph 16 as noted above, the Appellant called one Mr. Vijay, the Technical Support person and the Appellant has given the details of calls. Paragraph 16, indicate that the first call was given at 01:58 PM and the last call was given at 04:10 PM. The Appellant was able to submit bids after the last call given by the Appellant in both the Lots, i.e. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g two Members to look into the issue of technical glitch on the portal of GeM at the relevant time. Although, direction was issued in the above case to nominate an Expert Committee to render its opinion, which opinion was also submitted and ultimately the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. In the above case, learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the petitioner had immediately raised the ticket with Respondent No.2/ GeM portal for resolution of the glitch it faced. However, GeM portal team did not assist the petitioner. In the present case, from the own showing of the Appellant, he has called the support person, and even after his last call, the Appellant submitted several bids, which materials are on record and after submission of the last bid by the other bidder, there is no contemporaneous material to indicate that the Appellant has filed any communication and raised his bid within five minutes period, which was available for increasing the bid. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) 1429/2018 - L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr. to support his s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Appellant was held not qualified having not submitted the bid. In the above context, the Writ Petition was filed. The Delhi High Court with the consent of the parties appointed Technical Expert Agency, i.e. FSL, Rohini, Delhi. Two teams were constituted to submit a report with respect to the Appellant as well as ONGC. After examining the report, the Delhi High Court found that after uploading of the documents at 13:58:43 hrs., there was further activities noticed in the system of the Appellant, which clearly meant that the Appellant had pressed the submit button. Relying on the said report, the Writ Petition was allowed. 14.2. The judgment of the Delhi High Court relied by the Appellant was on its own facts, where the Appellant successfully proved that after uploading the bid documents, it had pressed the submit button, which was proved from the report of the Technical Expert. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Appellant had fully participated in the bid and submitted the bid even after period of two hours was over. The Appellant submitted his last but one bid also. Last bid being of the Successful Auction Purchaser and there was no further bid submitted by the A....