National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Against Auction Process in Insolvency Case Due to Technical Glitch Allegation Rejected. The Appellant's failure to participate in the auction was attributed to their own lapses, and the auction process was upheld as valid under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from an order of the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the Appellant's application regarding the auction process of Moser Baer Solar Ltd. initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Liquidation proceedings commenced on 30.05.2019, with the Appellant participating in the auction process by submitting bids and EMD. However, the Appellant claimed they were unable to participate in the auction held on 08.04.2025 due to a technical glitch preventing access to the pre-qualification link. The Adjudicating Authority found that the Appellant had abandoned the auction process and failed to meet the necessary requirements for participation. The Appellant's subsequent offer of Rs. 35 Cr. was made after the auction concluded, which the Liquidator did not consider. The Appellant argued that the auction process was flawed and sought a fresh auction, citing precedents supporting their claims. The Respondents contended that the auction was conducted fairly and transparently, and the Appellant's failure to participate was due to their own negligence. The Tribunal ultimately upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the auction process and the need for timely participation. The appeal was dismissed, and a fine was imposed on the Appellant for pursuing erroneous litigation.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Auction Process - Validity of Auction - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 - The Appellant contended that they were excluded from the auction due to a technical glitch in the e-auction platform. The Adjudicating Authority held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate their inclination to participate and attributed the failure to their own faults, thus rejecting the plea for a fresh auction. Held that the auction process was valid and the Appellant's claims were unfounded (Paras 20-21).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in concluding that the Appellant had abandoned the e-auction process and whether the technical glitch alleged by the Appellant justified a fresh auction.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, dismissing the appeal and imposing a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on the Appellant for pursuing erroneous litigation.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • auction process
  • technical glitch
  • eligibility criteria
  • fair participation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (05) 12

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1820 of 2025

2026-05-29

Barun Mitra

Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Mr. Arun Kathpalia

JFC Finance (India) Ltd.

Arvind Garg, PS B Alliance Pvt. Ltd., Chemester Food Industry Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the dismissal of an application regarding the auction process in insolvency proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to quash the e-auction proceedings and conduct a fresh auction.

Filing Reason

The Appellant claimed exclusion from the auction due to a technical glitch.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority had previously dismissed the Appellant's application and imposed a fine.

Issues

Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in concluding that the Appellant had abandoned the e-auction process. Whether the technical glitch alleged by the Appellant justified a fresh auction.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that they were excluded from the auction due to a technical glitch. The Respondent contended that the auction was conducted fairly and the Appellant's failure to participate was due to their own negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The auction process was upheld as valid, and the Appellant's failure to participate was attributed to their own lapses, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the auction process.

Judgment Excerpts

The Adjudicating Authority has held that the Appellant had failed to pay EMD and not uploaded the requisite documents. The auction process was valid and the Appellant's claims were unfounded.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed an application I.A No. 1746 of 2025 challenging the auction process, which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 19.11.2025, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 61, Section 29A, Section 35(1)(d)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Tribunals NCLAT Quashes Interim Order and Directs Return of Confiscated Documents. The Appellate Tribunal found that the earlier order lacked judicial propriety and must be set aside, leading to the return of all seized materials.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Insurance Company to Recover Compensation from Vehicle Owner Due to Fake License. Court found the driver's license invalid, allowing the Insurance company to seek reimbursement from the owner under the Insurance Act, 1938.