The case involves a dispute arising from a liquidation proceeding where the company under liquidation owned property in plot no. 825. The liquidator initially divided the plot into two lots and auctioned them. The Appellant was the successful bidder for the first lot, and the first Respondent for the second. Later, the liquidator discovered additional property in plot no. 825 and conducted a third auction. The Appellant was the highest bidder in the third auction, but the first Respondent challenged the auction, claiming the property was part of what they had purchased in lot 2. The NCLT Mumbai set aside the third auction, leading to the current appeal.
A company under liquidation owned property in plot no. 825. The liquidator divided the plot into two lots and held auctions. The Appellant, Krihaan Texchem Pvt. Ltd., won the first auction, and the first Respondent, UPL Ltd., won the second. Subsequently, the liquidator discovered additional property in plot no. 825 and conducted a third auction. The Appellant was the highest bidder in the third auction. The first Respondent challenged the third auction, claiming the property was part of what they had purchased in the second auction. The NCLT Mumbai set aside the third auction. The Appellant appealed this decision to the NCLAT. The Appellant argues that the first Respondent participated in the third auction with full knowledge that the property was not part of lot 2
…Sign in to view the parties.
Order issued in a…
Appeal list…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves a dispute arising from a liquidation proceeding where the company under liquidation owned property in plot no. 825. The liquidator initially divided the plot into two lots and auctioned them. The Appellant was the successful bidder for the first lot, and the first Respondent for the second. Later, the liquidator discovered additional property in plot no. 825 and conducted a third auction. The Appellant was the highest bidder in the third auction, but the first Respondent challenged the auction, claiming the property was part of what they had purchased in lot 2. The NCLT Mumbai set aside the third auction, leading to the current appeal.
A company under liquidation owned property in plot no. 825. The liquidator divided the plot into two lots and held auctions. The Appellant, Krihaan Texchem Pvt. Ltd., won the first auction, and the first Respondent, UPL Ltd., won the second. Subsequently, the liquidator discovered additional property in plot no. 825 and conducted a third auction. The Appellant was the highest bidder in the third auction. The first Respondent challenged the third auction, claiming the property was part of what they had purchased in the second auction. The NCLT Mumbai set aside the third auction. The Appellant appealed this decision to the NCLAT. The Appellant argues that the first Respondent participated in the third auction with full knowledge that the property was not part of lot 2
…Order issued in a…
Appeal list…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.