Skip to main content

Joint Auction Under IBC And SARFAESI Is Permissible

Citation : Ayan Mallick vs Pratim Bayal, Liquidator & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 456 of 2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 13.05.2022

Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)

Background

Appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT Kolkata in Dewesh Auto Creative Services Private Limited vs A.K.Power Industries Private Limited, C.P. (IB)No.1376/KB/2018 dated 01/02/2022, wherein the Hon'ble Judge had allowed the joint auction of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and the Guarantor as the same would maximise the value.

Part of land /factory of Corporate Debtor was owned by the Guarantor to the Bank. The banks have taken symbolic possession under SARFAESI Actof these assets, which were integral part of the plant of the Corporate Debtor.

The stakeholders banks had proceeded for sale under SARFAESI Act, 2002 by assessing the reserved price of said land at Rs.3.65 crore. Simultaneously the liquidator has also assessed the reserved price of Corporate Debtor through valuation and stakeholder’s discussion at stakeholder consultations committee at Rs.12.50 crore. These two reserved prices have been combined to create reserved price under the sale and the auction price received over and above reserved price would be pro rata disbursed among the Corporate Debtor and the Guarantor’s property.

The applicants had objected to this scheme.

Judgment

The applicant states that the properties of the Guarantor mentioned in the impugned auction notice are not part of Liquidation Estate being assets owned by 3rd party and thus could not be combined with the sale of Corporate Debtor. That in proceedings under IBC, assets of 3rd party / guarantor cannot be dealt with even under resolution plan. That it evident from the notice of sale itself, it has been issued by Liquidator and its combined notice under IBC, 2016 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 and it is not permissible under IBC.

The Respondents had argued that the Liquidator has the authority to issue the combined notice for the sale of these two assets. Further combined sale would fetch a higher price as if the land and plant are put to sale together, otherwise nobody would buy factory without factory land. The combined sale initiated by the liquidator for the purpose of maximization of the assets value.

The Hon. NCLT Kolkata had rejected the application stating that the Applicants were in no manner prejudiced by this combined sale. It is settled law ‘such action taken thereof cannot be held to be bad in law merely on raising a trivial objection which has no legs to stand unless the person is able to show any substantial prejudice being caused on account of the procedural lapse as prescribed under the Act or the rules framed thereunder. If there is maximization of the assets, selling it as a combined should not prejudice the applicant in any manner as it is going to get a better value for the corporate guarantor.

The Hon. NCLAT upheld the decision of NCLT.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more