SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 5603

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MADONA CREATIONS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
Umesh Poddar Liquidator of Aawrun Man-Tra Furnishings Pvt Ltd – Respondent
IA(I.B.C) - 756/2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Archana Baghel
For the Respondent:Nimisha Agarwal

In

C.P (IB) No. 644/KB/2019

An Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy, 2016. IN THE MATTER OF:

Indiabulls Consumer Finance Limited

……Financial Creditor

VERSUS

Aawrun Furnishings Man-Tra Private Limited.

……Corporate Debtor

AND

An application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Rule 11 of the National Company Law

Tribunal Rules, 2016.

C.P (IB) No.644/KB/2019 IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Madona Creations Private Limited ……Applicant Versus Mr. Umesh Poddar, Liquidator of Aawrun Furnishings Man-Tra Private Limited.

……Respondent Date of Pronouncement: 07.10.2025 Coram:

Shri. Labh Singh, Member (Judicial)

Ms. Rekha Kantilal Shah, Member (Technical)

Appearances(via Hybrid Mode):

Ms. Nimisha Agarwal, Adv. ]

Mr. Shauak Mitra, Adv. ] For the Liquidator Mr. Umesh Poddar, CA ]

O R D E R

Per: Rekha Kantilal Shah, Member (Technical)

1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by Madona Creations Private Limited under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking the following reliefs:

C.P (IB) No.644/KB/2019 a. To grant an extension of time to the Applicant for making the balance sale consideration payment (interest-free) in respect of Asset Lot No.2, until the disposal of I.A (IBC)/642/KB/2025;

b. To waive interest on any balance payment due from the applicant;

c. Ad-Interim orders and or costs;

d. Pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

Background of the case

1. Owing to paper publication made by the respondent in newspaper dated 06.01.2025, the applicant being interested in acquiring Asset Lot No.2 as specified in the E-auction notice, Annexure- A, duly submitted the requisite bid documents along with the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amounting to Rs. 17,81,436 (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eight-One Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Six only) vide email dated 17.01.2025, Annexure- B The Respondent duly acknowledged the receipt of the same through email dated 20.01.2025, Annexure- B

2. The applicant actively participated in the auction held on

04.02.2025 in respect of Asset Lot No.2. Upon conclusion of the auction, the applicant was declared as the C.P (IB) No.644/KB/2019 successful bidder at a bid amount of Rs. 2,23,12,360 (Rupees Two Crores Twenty-Three Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty only). Pursuant thereto, the Respondent issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) vide email dated 05.02.2025, Annexure- C, which was duly accepted, signed, and submitted by the applicant to the respondent via email dated 07.02.2025.

Submission on behalf of the Applicant

3. Ld. Counsel states that after the issuance and acceptance of the Letter of Intent, it came to the applicant’s knowledge that the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (“WBIDC”), being the original lessor of the premises of Asset Lot No.2, had raised serious objections with reference to the e-auction dated 04.02.2025, wherein the applicant was declared as the successful bidder. WBIDC thereby challenged the very basis and validity of the proposed sale of Asset Lot No.2 in favour of the applicant.

4. Ld. Counsel submits that, upon knowing about the objections raised by the WBIDC, the same were promptly brought to the notice of the Respondent through telephonic communication. The Applicant and respondent then visited the office of WBIDC together, where it was clearly conveyed that the matter would be taken care of by their C.P (IB) No.644/KB/2019 legal team. Therefore, the registration of the said asset in the name of the successful bidder could not be made. The officer even stated to the Applicant that they should not put in money until the said dispute is resolved, because they would not be in a position to provide any assistance thereafter.

5. Ld. Counsel submits that, in light of the said objections and the resultant uncertainty and potential litigation surrounding the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top