Back
NCLT Ahmedabad Bars Revival of After 2025 IBBI Regulation Changes
The , has delivered a significant ruling that a proposed sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern cannot be revived after the October 2025 amendments to the , merely because an auction notice had been issued before the change. The decision, rendered by a division bench comprising Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma, clarifies that no accrue to a liquidation process that has not resulted in a completed sale, successful bid, or receipt of consideration.
The ruling arose from the insolvency proceedings of , where the sole financial creditor, , had initiated the on . When no resolution plan materialised, the NCLT ordered liquidation on . During the liquidation phase, the liquidator issued an e-auction notice on , proposing to sell Cupid Estatecon as a going concern, with a reserve price of ₹18 lakh and an auction scheduled for . However, the auction did not culminate in a completed sale—no successful bidder emerged, and no sale consideration was received.
The legal landscape changed when the notified the on . This amendment omitted several provisions, including Regulations 31A(1)(f), 32(e), 32(f), and 32A, which had previously permitted the sale of a corporate debtor or its business as a going concern. Consequently, the court observed that “ is no longer prescribed as a in the liquidation framework applicable to the present exercise.”
The Core Dispute: Operation
Wellworth Apparels, as the sole member of the , argued that the sale process had already commenced when the auction notice was published on , and that the October 2025 amendment should be prospective, thus not affecting a process that had already begun. The financial creditor relied on a line of precedents— , , , and —which establish the principle that statutory amendments are ordinarily prospective unless they expressly or by necessary implication indicate retrospective operation.
The NCLT, however, rejected this contention. It distinguished the cited authorities by noting that the amended regulations contained a , which was the exclusive mechanism for preserving ongoing processes. The court held that “no completed has taken place and no vested right in favour of any purchaser has arisen.” Since the auction notice did not result in a , there was no substantive right that could be saved.
No Subsisting Business to Transfer
A critical factual finding further undermined the financial creditor’s position. The court observed that Cupid Estatecon had “no subsisting business or operational activity” and was not functioning as a going concern. It noted that “no continuing business undertaking had been shown that could be transferred and operated as a going concern.” This meant that even if the pre-amendment framework had remained applicable, the proposed sale lacked a genuine business to preserve.
The tribunal also addressed the precedential value of earlier and decisions cited by Wellworth Apparels, including and . It clarified that those judgments were rendered under the statutory framework then prevailing and could not be understood as creating an independent right to insist on a mode of liquidation sale contrary to the regulations applicable to the case at hand.
Legal Implications for Liquidation Practitioners
This ruling has immediate and far-reaching implications for insolvency professionals and stakeholders involved in corporate liquidations. The NCLT Ahmedabad Bench has effectively shut the door on attempts to revive processes that were initiated but not completed before the October 2025 amendments. Liquidators who had issued auction notices but not concluded sales cannot now argue that the earlier notice creates a vested right to continue under the old regime.
The decision reinforces the principle that the applicable regulations at the time of sale completion govern the , not merely the commencement of the process. It also underscores the importance of concluding liquidation sales expeditiously, particularly when regulatory changes are pending.
From a policy perspective, the IBBI’s decision to omit the mechanism from the liquidation regulations signals a shift away from preserving the corporate debtor’s business as a unit during liquidation. Going-concern sales had been a valuable tool for maximising value and preserving employment, but the regulator appears to have concluded that such sales were often misused or that the resolution process was the more appropriate stage for business preservation.
Future Outlook
The ruling may prompt a wave of similar objections in other pending liquidation cases where auction notices were issued before the amendment but sales remain incomplete. Financial creditors and liquidators will need to reassess their strategies, possibly pivoting to or seeking alternative modes of sale still permitted under the amended regulations.
The NCLT’s direction to the liquidator “not to proceed with or revive the earlier proposed process” serves as a clear precedent. Legal professionals advising insolvency stakeholders should note that the window for going-concern sales in liquidation has closed, at least for processes that were not fully consummated by .
In its concluding observations, the tribunal remarked that continuation of the proposed was “neither warranted by the facts nor necessary for completion of liquidation.” This language suggests that even if the amendment had not been enacted, the factual matrix—the absence of an ongoing business—would have justified a similar outcome. Nevertheless, the primary legal reasoning rests firmly on the regulatory change.
The decision is likely to be cited in future disputes over the temporal application of IBBI amendments and the scope of in liquidation proceedings. It also highlights the NCLT’s willingness to adapt its interpretation of the to align with evolving regulatory policy, even when that means disrupting ongoing processes.
For now, the Ahmedabad ruling stands as a definitive statement: an auction notice alone does not immunise a liquidation sale from subsequent regulatory changes. The only is a with a successful bidder and receipt of consideration before the amendment takes effect.
