TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the order dated 31.10.2025 had been that, the Appellant herein, who was the Respondent to the said proceedings in the capacity of Personal Guarantor, had been declared to be a bankrupt, and consequent to it, the Bankruptcy Trustee has been appointed. 3. It is argued by the Practicing Chartered Accountant, Mr. Sriram Shankar, appearing for the 2nd Respondent, M/s. Casurina Bays Private Limited, the Successful Auction Purchaser that as a consequence of the order of 31.10.2025, holding the Appellant as to be bankrupt in the capacity of the Personal Guarantor, the challenge given by the Appellant in the present company appeal, for all practical purposes, has been rendered infructuous, and no adjudication is required to be made on its merits. 4. The instant company appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, while describing himself as the shareholder and Personal Guarantor of M/s. Oceanic Edibles International Limited, wherein the Appellant challenges the impugned order, as rendered in IA No.777(CHE)/2024, being the IA preferred under Section 35(2) and Section 53 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to be read with Regulation 2(k) & Clause 4A and 4B of Schedule 1 under Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are of the opinion that his status as a Personal Guarantor, has yet again lost its significance due to the decision rendered by the Ld. NCLT on 31.10.2025 in CP(IB)169/(CHE)/2025, wherein the Appellant as a Personal Guarantor, had been directed to face the bankruptcy proceedings, having been declared so, in the light of the provisions contained under Sections 121 and 123 of the Code. 9. The Appellant in the instant company appeal has come up with the case that while Ld. NCLT dismissed his application IA/283(CHE)/2025, in which he questioned the Liquidator's conduct in the sale of the valuable assets of the Corporate Debtor and prayed for a reference to IBBI to take action against the Liquidator, it had observed that the actions taken by the Liquidator have become non-est, but at the same time, it proceeded to legalize and uphold the auction by dismissing IA/777(CHE)/2024, thus rendering contradictory finding which needs to be set aside. 10. Primarily, the concern expressed by the Appellant in the proceedings drawn before the Ld. NCLT was that, the sale of the assets that was conducted by the Liquidator, was in blatant disregard to the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....communicate the decision of SCC rejecting the scheme of compromise to the applicant/suspended Director. 14. The Liquidator then proceeded to prepare the process memorandum for the purposes of carrying out the e-auction process as scheduled on 18.09.2021, and got the valuation done for the corporate debtor. As per the report of the valuer, the average liquidation value of the corporate debtor was assessed as Rs. 24,84,33,000/-. Accordingly, in the auction that was scheduled for 04.10.2021, the reserve price was fixed to be Rs. 28,50,00,000/-, and the EMD to be submitted with the bid was fixed as Rs. 7,00,00,000/-. The auction was to be proceeded on the principles of 'as is where is', 'as is what is' 'whatever there is', 'no complaint', and' without the recourse available', and was proposed to be conducted by the Liquidator. 15. In the said e-auction held on 04.10.2021, no bid was submitted. Consequently, a fresh auction notice was published on 31.08.2023 fixing the reserve price as Rs. 25,65,00,000/- with an EMD of 5,00,00,000/- and the date of auction as 23.11.2022. Even in the 2nd e-auction, no bid was received. 16. Consequent to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and that he remained silent for three years and has filed the objections only after the auction was successfully completed, and therefore his only intention is to derail the liquidation process. 19. The Ld. Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and particularly the ratios as propounded, came to a conclusion that the so-called plea of fraud as raised by the Appellant, will be a factual plea that is required to be substantiated by the Appellant itself, which he has failed to establish in accordance with law. Hence, as the plea of fraud was held to be not established, it was declined to be accepted by Ld. NCLT and consequently, it went on to hold that the auction conducted on 24.11.2023 cannot be held to be in the eyes of law, with the observation that the auction cannot be reversed on the ground of a non-substantiated plea. 20. The Ld. Tribunal, after considering the entirety of the records and the plea taken by the Appellant with regard to the publication of auction notice, vis-à-vis the provisions of Regulation 12(3) of IBBI Regulations., has recorded that the publications were carried in newspapers having wide circulation and that "Dinaboomi" is a newspa....