Join for updates
Skip to content
IBC Law Reporter
  • Home
  • About Us
  • IBC News
  • Webinars/Seminars
  • Articles/Blogs/Write Ups
  • Resource
  • Contact Us
  • Ebook

Bidder having accepted the corporate debtor in a slump sale cannot request to treat that sale as sale of the corporate debtor as going concern: NCLT Ahmedabad

  • Post Author:admin
  • Post published:August 30, 2022

Jindal Power Ltd. Vs Dushyant Dave Liquidator of Shirpur Power Pvt Ltd.

IA/561(AHM)2022 in CP (IB) No 487 of 2018

Facts:

1.State Bank of India had filed a petition under petition Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), seeking initiation of CIRP against corporate debtor which was admitted by the Hon’ble NCLT on 04.03.2020.

2.On 03.02.2021, the CoC passed a resolution recommending the order of liquidation of the corporate debtor. On 15.03.2021, the liquidation process of the corporate debtor was started.

3.Liquidator published the first notice dated 05.04.2021 for the sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern. The reserve price was fixed as Rs. 5,66,23,00,000/-. The liquidator did not get a response from any bidder, When no prospective buyers turned up to purchase the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, the Liquidator published a fresh notice dated 20.07.2021 declaring the slump sale of the corporate debtor. The reserve price for slump sale was fixed for Rs. 4,77,84,50,000/-.

4.Applicant accepted the bid of the corporate debtor as a slump sale for a sum of Rs. 3,14,38,49,770/- i.e., the minimum price fixed by the liquidator.

5.Applicant filed this application requesting this Adjudicating Authority to convert the slump sale of the corporate debtor into the sale as a going concern and direct the liquidator to issue the sale certificate accordingly.

Issue: Whether having accepted the corporate debtor in a slump sale, the bidder can request to treat that sale as a
sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern?

Arguments:

For Applicant:

1.Counsel submitted that the applicant is a successful bidder. He has now deposited the bid amount. His request is only to direct the liquidator to sell the corporate debtor as a going concern instead of confirming the sale as a slump sale.

2.He would further submit that it is the main object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to promote entrepreneurship and preserve the existence of the corporate debtor. If the liquidator is directed to treat this sale as a going concern then all stakeholders would be benefited, and employment will be generated.

3.He contends that if the liquidator is directed to treat the slump sale as sale as a going concern, no one, even the stakeholders’ committee, will not be affected prejudicially.

For Respondents:

1.Counsel submitted that liquidator had published the notice of the sale of the corporate debtor as slump sale and in response thereto the applicant accepted the bid for a sum of Rs. 3,14,38,49,770/- which is the minimum price for a slump sale. The sale is concluded.

2. The liquidator has consulted the stakeholders’ committee and the stakeholders’ committee suggested that let the purchasers deposit the bid amount then the committee will take a call on the applicant’s request. According to learned counsel for the liquidator, the liquidator has no authority to convert the slump sale into the sale as a going concern and this application is not maintainable, hence, may be rejected.

3.Further Counsel for Stakeholder Committee submitted that initially when the liquidator published the sale notice of the corporate debtor as a going concern for the reserve price of Rs. 5,66,23,00,000/-, the applicant did not opt for the same. Now, having reduced the price, as there was no buyer, the applicant has conveniently accepted the bid for less amount under the slump sale but now requesting this Adjudicating Authority to treat the sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern.

Decision: NCLT Held that bidder having accepted the corporate debtor in slump sale, can’t request to treat that sale as a sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern.

Rationale:

1.NCLT noted that the material on record shows that the liquidator took all possible steps to sale the corporate debtor as a going concern but he did not get any response. The applicant herein also missed that opportunity, we do not know the reasons as to why the applicant did not accept the bid of the corporate debtor as a going concern at the first point of time.

2.The applicant had not put any condition when he accepted the bid to purchase the corporate debtor as a slump sale. The price of the corporate debtor in the sale as a going concern was fixed at Rs. 5,66,23,00,000/- as maximum and Rs. 4,33,16,59,500/- as a minimum whereas the price of slump sale of the corporate debtor was fixed at Rs. 4,77,84,50,000/- as maximum and Rs. 3,14,38,49,770/- as a minimum. The applicant accepted the corporate debtor in slump sale for a minimum price of Rs. 3,14,38,49,770/-. There is a vast difference between the sale price of the corporate debtor as a going concern and the sale price of the corporate debtor in a slump sale.

Order Copy:

Jindal-Power-vs-Liquidator-of-Shirpur-pvt-Ltd_NCLTDownload

Read more articles

Previous PostIt is the duty of the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor to sign the financial statements of the Corporate Debtor during the on-going Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process-NCLAT Delhi
Next PostRejecting the request of the Corporate Debtor on the very first day for grant of time to file a reply, cannot be said to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice-NCLAT
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Latest Posts

  • Distribution of accumulated cash lying in the bank account of the CD to the stakeholders | Section 53 & Regulation 42 of Liquidation Regulations
    August 11, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Monitoring Committee or the Resolution Applicant is not empowered to file/pursue PUEF/avoidance transactions proceedings | NCLT Delhi | 01.07.2021
    Monitoring Committee or the Resolution Applicant is not empowered to file/pursue PUEF/avoidance transactions proceedings | NCLT Delhi | 01.07.2021
    July 16, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • IBC Law Reporter’s Insights on new changes in CIRP Regulations | 14.07.2021
    IBC Law Reporter’s Insights on new changes in CIRP Regulations | 14.07.2021
    July 15, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Neither the proceedings for recovery of the dues nor the proceedings for recovery of possession of the allotted premises can be allowed to continue or any proposed action in that regard can be sustained during the currency of the CIRP-NCLT Mumbai
    Neither the proceedings for recovery of the dues nor the proceedings for recovery of possession of the allotted premises can be allowed to continue or any proposed action in that regard can be sustained during the currency of the CIRP-NCLT Mumbai
    July 13, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Bank Guarantee (BG) can be invoked even after the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016- NCLAT
    Bank Guarantee (BG) can be invoked even after the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016- NCLAT
    July 10, 2021/
    0 Comments

Follow Us

  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab

Get in Touch

IBC Law Reporter

Phone: +91 83989-94547
Email: support@ibclawreporter.in

www.ibclawreporter.in

Follow Us

  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab

Contact Us





    Quick Links

    Home
    About Us
    Contact Us
    Ebook
    Our Recommendation

    Copyright 2025 - IBC Law Reporter | All Right Reserved
    Close Menu
    • Home
    • About Us
    • IBC News
    • Webinars/Seminars
    • Articles/Blogs/Write Ups
    • Resource
    • Contact Us
    • Ebook