This article will deal with two noteworthy judgments wherein the question perishable and non perishable goods with respect to private auction had been raised further the Court also went on to reiterate the fact that the System always takes note of payments to be done by the Committee of Creditors along with a plethora of cases with respect to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Stay tuned to this section wherein it will deal with more articles which discusses the various changes and important judgments, analysis of judgments and reports in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Track your NCLT / NCLAT cases or orders in your apple iOS / Google Android smartphones. Available for free trial period of 15 days.
- Alchemist Asset Construction Company Limited vs. Moser Baer India Limited
In this case the question was whether prior permission was to be taken from the Adjudicating Authority in order to conduct a private sale of goods belonging to the Corporate Debtor, by the Liquidator. The regulation 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 lays down that prior permission has to be taken to sell the assets of the Corporate Debtor vide a Private Sale. Wherein the Court laid down that:
“to our mind the proper interpretation of clauses (a) and (b) would be that a liquidator is entitled to sell the assets without requirement of prior permission after reaching the conclusion that the assets are perishable and it is likely to deteriorate significantly in value if not sold immediately. Otherwise the purpose of the regulation would be defeated if the if time is required to be spent in filing an application and taken permission because the assets which are perishable may not remain available for sale and will perish or it may deteriorate significantly in value if not sold immediately.”
- Super Print services vs. M/s Xalta Food and Beverages Pvt Ltd
The adjudicating authority observed that some of the Committee of Creditors had not contributed anything to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, this thereby halted the entire process. The Adjudicating Authority went on to levy due penalties for stalling the process. It also ordered to provide a show cause notice as to why their claim should not be rejected if they do not contribute towards the share of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process costs proportionate to their claim.
