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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more