TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Raghav Chadha, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Totala, Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Ms. Vasudha Jain and Mr. Mayank Jain, Advocates for R-1/Liquidator. Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Petrushka Dasgupta, Mr. Mridul Yadav, Mr. Kewal Buddhev, Ms. Krishna Sarvah and Mr. Anand Singh Sengar, Advocates for R-2 & R-3. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the liquidator as well as learned counsel appearing for the Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA"). 2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench - I), by which order, I.A. No. 1879/2026 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. In the liquidation proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity in paragraph 1, which is as follows: "a) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside present auction sale conducted on 29th March 2026 and further direct the Liquidator to conduct the sale after giving sufficient opportunity to the Applicant and/or any other bidder to inspect the asset proposed for auction as per industry standards; In strictly in alternate and without prejudice to prayer (a) b) that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to reject Interlocutory Application No.1707 of 2026 filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking relief, concession and modification to the terms of sale; c) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside communication dated 24th April 2026 issued by Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... equity." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the inspection, the appellant has also sent a letter to the liquidator that he is ready to pay Rs. 25 crore more with respect to each Aircrafts. 8. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Sunil Fernandes appearing for the liquidator opposing the submission of the counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was given opportunity to inspect and sale process memorandum has clearly provided that sale process is "as is where is", "as is what is" and "as is how is". The inspection was also permitted to the appellant for 2 days. After receipt of the letter from appellant that he is ready to pay Rs. 25 crore each, the matter was placed before the Stakeholders Consultation Committee ("SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess memorandum clearly provided the sale of the Aircraft "as is where is", "as is what is" and "as is how is basis". Request for appellant to grant inspection was also allowed for 26.03.2025 & 27.03.2025. Auction being fixed for 29.03.2026, no further time could have been allowed to the appellant as prayed. The appellant participated in the bid and gave his bid in several rounds in the inter see bid between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent's bid was accepted which was higher. After the close of the auction, the letter sent by the appellant that he is ready to give Rs. 25 crore more for each Aircrafts was rightly placed before the liquidator before SCC. SCC having not permitted liquidator to take any further steps for re-auct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment came to be concluded on 29.3.2026. It is also pertinent to note that, each day of delay is causing additional costs to the process in terms of Airport operator's charges. Even if it is assumed that such charges may not be required to be paid in priority, but, the parking of Aircrafts is resulting into avoidable blockage of infrastructure resources, even if owned by a third person. Accordingly, we are of considered view that the 'value maximixation' can not be read to make a process endless. 44. In case of Valji Khimji (Supra), it is held that : "34. In the present case we are satisfied that there is no fraud in the auction sale. It may be mentioned that auctions are of two types - (1) where the auction is not subject ....