TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n short), arises from the order dated 19.11.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench) in I.A. No. 1746 of 2025 filed in C.P. (IB) No. 272/PB/2017. By the said Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed I.A No. 1746 of 2025 filed by the Appellant - JFC Finance (India) Ltd. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. Coming to the chronological sequence and events which are relevant to be noticed in the present matter, the same are as outlined below: • The Liquidation proceedings of Moser Baer Solar Ltd. ("MBSL" in short)- Corporate Debtor was initiated on 30.05.2019. • In the 1st Round of sale process which was undertaken, the Respondent No. 1-Liquidator issued a sale notice inviting bids for sale of Not Readily Realizable Assets ('NRRA' in short) assets of the Corporate Debtor on 09.12.2022. • On 27.12.2022, the Appellant-JFC Finance (India) Ltd. ('JFC' in short) gave an offer of Rs. 8 Cr. alongwith EMD of Rs. 80 Lakhs for purchase of the NRRA assets of the Corporate Debtor. • ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through the electronic auction platform. The prospective bidders were also required to deposit the EMD through the BAANKNET auction platform which EMD was to be forfeited, if the bidder was found ineligible. • On 29.03.2025, the Liquidator issued an addendum extending the date of auction to 04.04.2025 with deadline for EMD submission extended till 02.04.2025. • On 01.04.2025, the Appellant sought physical inspection of the assets of the Corporate Debtor which was granted by the Liquidator though the last date for physical inspection was already over on 29.03.2025. • On 03.04.2025, the Liquidator sent an email to all prospective bidders including the Appellant intimating that the auction process would be in terms of IBBI's circular of 28.03.2025 and asked the bidders to register on the BAANKNET platform. The prospective bidders were required to submit the requisite documents including declaration of eligibility under Section 29A of the IBC through the electronic auction platform. The prospective bidders were also required to deposit the EMD through the BAANKNET auction platform. The Liquidator also provided a User Guide for registration on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction. • On 09.04.2025, the High Court directed the Liquidator not to take further steps pursuant to the e-auction till 21.04.2025. • The 23rd meeting of the Consultative Committee of Stakeholders ('SCC' in short) was held on 15.04.2025 which resolved by 100% voting to declare the Respondent No. 3 as the highest bidder. • On 16.04.2025, the Appellant filed I.A No. 1746 of 2025 before the Adjudicating Authority following which the Adjudicating Authority on 21.04.2025 directed the Liquidator to maintain status quo in terms of the order dated 09.04.2025 of the Delhi High Court. The main prayers in IA 1746 of 2025 was for quashing of the e-auction proceedings of 08.04.2025; conduct of fresh auction proceedings permitting the Appellant to participate therein or permit them to have inter-se bidding with the highest bidder. • On 11.09.2025, the Appellant filed an affidavit before the Adjudicating Authority offering Rs. 35 Cr. for acquiring the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. • On 30.10.2025, another I.A was filed by the Appellant seeking directions to be issued by the Adjudicating Authority to the Liquidator to disclose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y did they comply to all instructions of the Liquidator on the e- auction modalities but had also logged on to the e-auction platform several times much before the auction date. Further as instructed by the Liquidator in their email of 03.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 and the accompanying User Guide, they had registered themselves on the e-auction portal; uploaded relevant documents in the Document Library and deposited EMD in the e- wallet. It was emphatically asserted that there was no mention by the Liquidator with regard to any separate pre-qualification process either in their email dated 03.04.2025 or 07.04.2025 nor any separate communication in this regard was sent by the Liquidator. It was further contended that though all the steps in State I captioned "First Time Registration" of the User Guide had already been complied with, they did not receive the pre-qualification link referred to in Step '5' under the Stage II of the User Guide captioned 'Participating in Auction' due to a technical glitch in the e-auction portal. Thus though it was technical error in the BAANKNET platform which prevented them from taking part in the bid process, Adjudicating Authority has wrongly held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the interest of all the stakeholders in terms of Section 35(1)(d) of the IBC. It was further pointed out that though the Appellant had submitted an enhanced offer of Rs. 35 Cr. which was 25% higher than the highest offer, the Liquidator never placed the offer before the SCC which shows that the Liquidator was working with the malafide intent of excluding a bonafide and financially capable participant from offering a substantially higher bid value thereby frustrating the spirit and object of the IBC. The Appellant further demonstrated both their serious earnestness and bonafide as also their financial capability by depositing an amount of Rs. 54 Cr. with the Liquidator on 02.02.2026 on the directions of the High Court of Delhi which amount is twice the value of bid sought to be approved in favour of the Successful Auction Purchaser-Respondent No. 3. 6. In support of their contention, that they cannot be excluded from the auction proceedings and that re-auction must be allowed, the Appellant has relied on the judgments of the High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of JSW Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2018) SCC OnLine Raj 1314 and in SMO Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e BAANKNET portal prior to the holding of the auction remained bound by the terms and conditions and requirements of the BAANKNET portal. 8. Since the BAANKNET portal was a 'do it yourself' portal, it was also incumbent upon the Appellant to transfer the uploaded documents from the Document Library and the money from the e-wallet to the e-auction platform. It was added that the User Guide which had also been circulated to all the bidders made it amply clear that these steps were necessarily required to be completed for participating in the auction. It was the Appellant who was required to upload the documents and deposit the EMD on their own with no role for the Liquidator in this process. It was further added that for participating in the auction, the uploaded documents and EMD had to be transferred on to the specific auction for the Corporate Debtor by 1500 hours of 07.04.2025 which was not done by the Appellant. It was also added that the pre-qualification could not have been allowed by the Liquidator after crossing the time-deadline since it was an automated process with no scope of manual intervention. Thus, the Liquidator was helpless in such a situation in helping any par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s mandatorily required to be accomplished, the Appellant's prayer to set aside the auction process is untenable. It was submitted that it was well-known to all the bidders that the liquidation auction was being conducted on the BAANKNET platform which was a faceless and self-servicing 'do it yourself' platform. When the Appellant had already registered itself on the portal and had created a profile for itself, all subsequent steps were to be thereafter also completed by the Appellant only and by none else. The BAANKNET portal was having an automated architecture with no scope for any human or manual intervention including that by the Liquidator. 12. The Liquidator had also acted fairly by clearly spelling out the rules of the game in their email dated 03.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 whereby the Liquidator had inter alia also circulated the User Guide, FAQs and Helpline Mobile No. and email. All other bidders had completed the process including the Stage-II Step 5 of pre-qualification link and successfully participated without facing any difficulties which clearly shows that the platform was properly functional. The Appellant on the other hand raised the plea of technical glitch one ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the auction. Permitting any such plea would destabilize the liquidation regime and lead to unavoidable delays which can never be the aim and objective of a liquidation undertaken within the statutory framework of the IBC. 14. It was also pointed out that the Appellant is habitually addicted to raising similar grounds of technical glitches accompanied with a higher post- auction offer to agitate the holding of re-auction. In another appeal filed by the Appellant before this Tribunal in JFC Finance (India) Ltd. Vs. Anil Kohli in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 239 of 2023, the same pattern was adopted by this Appellant wherein this Tribunal spurned their prayer for re-auction. This Tribunal had held that it was not open to anyone to come after the auction and say that they are ready to give a higher offer, for no one can be allowed to offer higher amount after completion of e-auction. The order of this Tribunal being directly on the same point involving the same Appellant clutching on to the same modus operandi, therefore, deserves to be seen with a needle of suspicion. 15. Conceding that any auction undertaken as a part of the liquidation process is a price discovery mechanism, however, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seas Bank by virtue of an assignment deed, it has a direct and substantial interest in the manner in which the assets of the Corporate Debtor are realized. In the present case, when the Appellant has already tendered a demand draft of Rs. 54 Cr. which has already been realized by Liquidator in his account which is twice the value at which the present assets have been sold to the highest bidder, it clearly demonstrates that the assets were capable of fetching a substantially higher value. Thus, when the asset is already fetching twice the price at which it is proposed to be sold, the Liquidator cannot insist on completing the transaction on hyper-technical grounds that the Appellant was a non-serious bidder. In support of their contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Sakthi Sekar vs V. Sukumar and Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 368 wherein it has been clearly held that the underlying purpose of liquidation under IBC is to maximize the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor so as to ensure the most remunerative price through competitive bidding. It was asserted that when a substantially higher and already realized offer is available from a bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pre- qualification link of the auction portal purportedly occasioned by a technical glitch was a specious plea raised by the Appellant as an afterthought to secure another round of auction process; and (c) whether in the light of the earlier enhanced offer of Rs. 35 Cr made by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, albeit after conclusion of the auction process, followed up by a subsequent deposit of Rs. 54 Cr. with the Liquidator as bid value on the directions of the Delhi High Court provides adequate foundational basis for conduct of a fresh auction process in the interest of value maximization for stakeholders. 22. We would like to deal with the first two questions framed by us conjointly since the issues raised therein are inextricably linked. 23. It is the case of the Appellant that they have been actively participating in the sale process of the Corporate Debtor right since the commencement of the liquidation proceedings. Even at the stage of first round of sale process which preceded the sale by auction, the Appellant had submitted a revised bid of Rs. 26 Cr. Even during the second round of sale process by auction for which the Liquidator had publish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground that the Appellant has not been able to produce any proof of non-receipt of pre- qualification link. When the BAANKNET platform authorities have not controverted the fact that there was no technical glitch, the Adjudicating Authority on their own could not have assumed that there was no technical fault in the platform and that the pleading of technical glitch made by the Appellant was only a specious plea contrived as an afterthought to justify the cancellation of the e-auction by the Appellant. 26. Per contra, it is the contention of the Respondent No. 1-Liquidator and Respondent No. 3-Successful Auction Purchaser that the non-completion of the pre-qualification documents was clearly not a technical lapse but had happened because of failure on the part of the Appellant to click the right button for submission of pre-qualification documents which was necessary to enter into the Stage II process of e-auction. It was stressed upon by both the Respondents that the BAANKNET platform was a "do-it-yourself" platform which was faceless and fully automated. Much emphasis was laid on the fact that all the bidders had been adequately informed by the Liquidator through his email on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined or invoked the benefit of the helpline on time and in holding that this was a specious excuse which was an after-thought to cover their non-seriousness in participating in the auction process. 27. At this stage, it would be useful and constructive to look into emails dated 03.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 from the Liquidator and the User Guide as circulated so as to find out whether the instructions contained therein had been complied to by the Appellant which are as extracted hereunder: "From: Arvind Garg [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 3 April, 2025 4:04 PM To: Contact; [email protected] Subject: Re: Moser Baer Solar Limited-Extension of Auction Date/ Return of EMD/ Re-deposit in e- wallet Attachments: Annexure I-IBBI Circular dated March 28, 2025.pdf; Annexure III-FAQ on Mandatory Use of Baanknet.pdf; Annexure Il-Bidders Registration Guide.pdf Dear Sir/ Madam Your kind attention is drawn towards Circular No. IBBI/LIQ/84/2025 (Circular) issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on March 28, 2025. To abide with the directions issued by IBIBI vide circular issued on March 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lakh only) is re-deposited by you by adding to the e-wallet on the auction platform to enable your participation in the e-auction process of corporate debtor Moser Baer Solar Limited-in- liquidation. Please note that in case EMD is not deposited in e-wallet at the auction platform latest by April 07, 2025 {23:59 hours), you will not be able to participate in the auction process. Please note that the e-wallet option shall be visible to you during the process of registration at the auction platform. You may please obtain assistance in this regard from Mr Kashyap Patel at +91 63546 04884. Please contact the undersigned for any further clarification. Liquidator" (Emphasis Supplied) "From: Arvind Garg <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 7 April, 2025 1:10 PM To: Contact Subject: Moser Beer Solar Limited- Registration as prospective bidder Dear Sir As advised to us just now by Mr Kashyap Patel, you are requested to register yourself as a buyer on the auction platform https://ibbi.baanknet.com and coordinate with the Auction Platform at +91 63546 04884 (Mr Kashyap Patel) or To....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pate' • Step 8. Pay EMD • Step 9. Accept Terms and Conditions • Step 10. If you are participating in an auction along with other bidders, select 'Yes'. If you are bidding alone, select 'No'. After that pay the EMD. 32. The part detailing steps for 'During Auction' contains the following steps: DURING AUCTION • Step 1. After payment of EMD, visit the auction platform on the auction date and time. You will be placed in a Bidding Hall. • Step 2. During the auction, you can bid with the increment price. a) You can see if you are the highest bidder. b) You can see what is the Highest Bid (H1 Bid Price) • Step 3. After completion of the auction, the results will be declared. In case, you are the highest bidder, the EMD will be transferred to the liquidator. If you are not the highest bidder, the bid amount will come to the E wallet." (Emphasis Supplied) 29. When we look at the two emails, we find that the email of 03.04.2025 clearly referred to the Process Information Document which had been issued earlier on 06.03.2025 and that the same stoo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments in the Document Library and deposited the EMD amount in the e-wallet of the BAANKET platform. Thus, the directions of the Liquidator contained in his two emails of 03.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 had been willfully complied to by the Appellant. The E-wallet account screenshot which has been placed at page 276 of APB also clearly shows that the account balance update in the e-wallet account of the Appellant was reflecting Rs. 2.5 Cr. at 13:44:42 hours as on 07.04.2025. Since there was no mention of any pre-qualification process to be completed either in the email dated 03.04.2025 or 07.04.2025, the contention of the Appellant that there was no further action to be taken on their part on having uploaded the eligibility documents in the Document Library of the BAANKNET portal and deposited the EMD amount on the e-wallet of the BAANKNET portal cannot be outrightly disregarded as false or a half-truth. From the above actions taken by the Appellant, there is sufficient reason for us to feel satisfied that the Appellant had demonstrably participated in the auction process in a bonafide manner and it was not misconceived on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to hold that the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he call from the Appellant which is as extracted hereunder: Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 4:21 PM "support baanknet <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Dear Sir, I am writing to inform you about a telephonic complaint I received today regarding Auction ID 144 (Moser Baer Solar Limited - in liquidation). The key timelines for the auction were as follows: • PQ Submission End Date & Time: 07/04/2025, 15:00 hrs • Inspection End Date & Time: 07/04/2025, 16:00 hrs • EMD Payment End Date & Time: 07/04/2025, 23:59 hrs • Auction End Date & Time: 08/04/2025, 18:00 hrs On 08/04/2025 at 15:17 hrs, I received a call from +91 98112 10979, representing JFC Finance Limited. The caller inquired about the unavailability of the PQ submission link. I informed them that the PQ submission window had already closed on 07/04/2025 at 15:00 hrs, and hence, they were no longer eligible to participate in the auction. The caller alleged that the PQ submission link had been inaccessible since the previous day. However, it is important to note that the contact details of Mr. Arvind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... With reference to the auction notice dated 06.03.2025, issued by Mr. Arvind Garg, Liquidator Moser Baer Solar Ltd. (In Liquidation) for sale of Moser Baer Solar Ltd. (MBSL) as Option I: Sale as a going concern on as is where is basis and without recourse basis. Option II: Sale of NRRA on as is where is basis and without recourse basis. We had participated in the said Bid for Option I and submitted all our document with requisite EMD of Rs. 2.5 Crores to the Liquidator. Thereafter, the Liquidator extended the last date of submission of EMD to 02.04.2025 and date of auction to 04.04.2025. On 03.04.2025, the Liquidator informed us that in view of the circular dated 25.03.2025 issued by IBBI, the auction would now be conducted on BAANKNET portal and requested that all the documents w.r.t. to the EOI, 29A Affidavit and other qualification documents alongwith the EMD of Rs. 2.5 Crores to be uploaded on the BAANKNET portal after registration on the portal and creating a login ID and password. The last date for submitting EMD was 07.04.2025 upto 23.59 hrs. and the auction was to take place on 08.04.2025 from 04:00 PM to 06:00 PM. We had registe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd due to the technical problem in this process we have not been provided the prequalification link and have not been able to participate in the auction even though, all the documents with EMD were provided by us to the Liquidator as well as uploaded on the BAANKNET portal. We request you to postpone / cancel the auction to enable us to participate in the same or allow us to do inter-se bidding with the highest bidder. Regards For JFC Finance(India) Ltd. Director (Emphasis Supplied) 36. However, we find that the Liquidator without being perturbed that an interested bidder has got excluded from the auction process took a hands-off approach premised on hyper-technicality that the Appellant had not taken necessary steps to enter into Step '6' of Stage-2. We find it surprising that even after the BAANKNET platform administrators had informed the Liquidator about the Appellant having complained that pre-qualification link was not visible to him, the Liquidator did not seek any report or status feedback from BAANKNET as to whether there was any incidence of technical glitch having actually taken place as complained by the Appellant. 37. Even t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im order that in the event there was no representation/affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2, this Tribunal would proceed to decide the matter on merits. As Respondent No. 2 did not appear, the BAANKNET authorities have neither admitted nor controverted the contention of the Appellant that there was a technical glitch. We are therefore inclined to give benefit of doubt to the Appellant that they had faced a technical problem of not having received the pre-qualification link. We also cannot be unmindful of the fact that this new platform had been introduced contemporaneously and for both the bidders and the Liquidator this was an equally new mechanism for all the stake- holders. 40. Thus, to answer question nos. (a) and (b) at para 21 above, we are not persuaded to accept the finding returned by the Adjudicating Authority that the Appellant had abandoned the e-auction process and was not a serious bidder or that the plea of technical difficulty raised by the Appellant preventing them from participating in the auction process on the BAANKNET platform was illusory or a bluster. 41. This brings us to the third issue which we have outlined before us as to whether the offer made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and financial institutions which would subserve public interest and align with the legislative objective of the IBC of value maximization. 44. It is the counter contention of the Liquidator that the above finding returned by the Adjudicating Authority is in conformity with the ratio outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases wherein it has held that after auction process is completed, the Liquidator cannot cancel the auction merely on a third-party communication that a higher price could be obtained. It was vehemently contended that unless fraud or collusion vitiates the auction proceedings, the Liquidator does not enjoy the mandate to cancel the auction as any such step would erode the credibility of auction process itself. Moreover, the initial offer made of Rs. 35 Cr. was not made before the Liquidator but had been placed before the Adjudicating Authority. Similar argument was canvassed by Respondent No. 3 that any price discovery or price maximization should happen before the auction proceedings are completed. It was also pointed out that there are a catena of judgments passed by this Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Tribunal which has held that a higher s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion was an open auction after wide publicity in well-known newspapers. Hence, there was nothing to prevent M/s Manibhadra Sales Corporation and M/s Castwell Alloys Ltd. to have participated in the auction, but they did not do so. There is no allegation of fraud either in this case. Hence, in our opinion, there was no justification to set aside the confirmation of the sale. ..... 28...of course, the situation may be different if an auction-sale is finalised, say for Rs 1 crore, and subsequently somebody turns up offering Rs 10 crores. In this situation it is possible to infer that there was some fraud because if somebody subsequently offers Rs 10 crores, then an inference can be drawn that an attempt had been made to acquire that property/asset at a grossly inadequate price. This situation itself may indicate fraud or some collusion. However, if the price offered after the auction is over which is only a little over the auction price, that cannot by itself suggest that any fraud has been done." 46. We are of the view that the ratio of the above two judgements do not fully support the Respondents in that while it lays down that ordinarily once any sale by auctio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC 189 which reads as under: "79. Thus, mere expectation of the Liquidator that a still higher price may be obtained can be no good ground to cancel an otherwise valid auction and go for another round of auction. Such a cause of action would not only lead to incurring of avoidable expenses but also erode credibility of the auction process itself. That apart, post auction it is not open to the Liquidator to act on third-party communication and cancel an auction, unless it is found that fraud or collusion had vitiated the auction. The necessary corollary that follows therefrom is that there can be no absolute or unfettered discretion on the part of the Liquidator to cancel an auction which is otherwise valid...." The ratio of Eva Agro Feeds judgment is distinguishable since in that case the request for cancellation of auction had come from a third party. 49. On contention raised by the Respondents that the Appellant is a habitual fence-sitter in e-auction matters and in another bid had raised similar technical error issues to manipulate their backdoor entry into the auction process which had been turned down by this Tribunal in JFC Finance (India) Ltd. judgment supra, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforesaid facts dispel all allegations vis-a-vis the occurrence of technical glitches or snags on the e-portal. If any issues were faced by the Petitioner herein while submitting its bid for the Subject Tender, they were certainly not caused by any technical glitch on the part of the NIC or the Respondents. Therefore, the failure of the bidder to submit its bid within due time on the e-portal is certainly the fault of the Petitioner itself, and this Court finds no merit in the allegations leveled by the Petitioner that it was unable to submit its bid due to technical glitches. 16. It is well settled that the scope of interference by a High Court in matters of tender, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is extremely narrow. The Court ought not to interfere in such matters unless it is established that the process adopted by the decision-making authority is mala fide, intended to favour someone, arbitrary or irrational...." Even in Deep Blue Xpress matter we find that the failure of the bidder to submit its bid within due time was not caused by any technical glitch on the part of the NIC. 52. When we come to the facts of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the above context, although it has transpired in these proceedings that the reserve price for the concerned asset/s was woefully inadequate and the auction process was also riddled with controversy, considering that the liquidator has sought to effect a course correction in terms of the statement recorded in the order dated 21.01.2026, this Court does not find it necessary to delve deeper into the aforementioned allegations of the petitioner. ..... 17. The aforesaid extracts of the 'Process Information Document' governing the auction process recognizes the rights and powers of the Liquidator to annul the auction process and initiate a re- auction, inter-alia to maximize the value received in the liquidation proceedings. Inherently, the auction process is also within the regulatory purview of the NCLT and the NCLAT. It appears that the offer of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 54 Crores, for the very asset/s which have been sought to be e-auctioned for Rs. 28.27 Crores, and the stand now taken by the liquidator that a re- auction shall be conducted with reserve price of Rs. 54 Crores, is in the interest of maximization of the value of the liquidation estate. The s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....position that the rights of a bona fide auction purchaser deserve due protection and that confirmed court sales should not ordinarily be interfered with, it is equally well established that such protection is not absolute. Where credible issues are raised regarding the adequacy of valuation or the fairness of the process leading to the fixation of the reserve price, the supervisory jurisdiction of the court may be invoked to ensure that the recovery proceedings have been conducted in a manner that secures the best possible value of the property. The objective of recovery proceedings is not merely to complete the sale but to realise the maximum value of the secured asset so as to balance the interests of the creditor and the borrower. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this court in Rajiv Kumar Jindal v. BCI Staff Colony Residential Welfare Association, wherein, it was observed that the purpose of an auction is to obtain the most remunerative price for the property by affording an opportunity to intending purchasers to participate in a process of competitive bidding, thereby ensuring transparency and fairness in the sale. The court further emphasised that if th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should be legitimate. Their dealing should be free from suspicion. Nothing should be suggestive of bias, favouritism, nepotism or beset with suspicious features of underbidding detrimental to the legitimate interest of the debtor ... '" 55. We find that the above judgment clearly comes to the aid of the Appellant in that though an auction process has a sanctity attached to it and only for valid reasons the highest bid can be discarded in an auction, present is a case where a much higher offer has been made by the Appellant who despite being a bonafide participant in the bidding process but had got excluded due to technical glitches beyond his control. The offer amount has already been deposited with the Liquidator who has also taken the stand taken before the Delhi High Court that a re-auction shall be conducted with reserve price of Rs. 54 Cr. in the interest of maximization of value of the liquidation estate, the same surely furthers the underlying object of the IBC which is to protect and preserve the assets of the corporate debtor in liquidation by selling at the best possible price. Basis the above, our answer to question (c) at para 21 above is in the affirmative. ....