NCLAT held that the failure to challenge the subsequent e-auction notice constitutes waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel by conduct on the part of the Appellant/ Successful Resolution Applicant.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench comprising Justice M. Venugopal & Sharad Kumat Sharma (Judicial Members) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) was hearing an appeal and observed that the Appellant’s failure to challenge the subsequent e-auction notice constituted waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel by conduct, rendering the appeal against the initial sale notice futile and unmeritorious.
The appeal was dismissed because the Appellant did not challenge the subsequent e-auction notice dated 15.02.2024, which effectively amounted to waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel by conduct. This omission rendered the appeal against the initial sale notice dated 16.09.2023 legally untenable and without merit.
The NCLAT heard the appeal filed by the Appellant against the NCLT's order dated 09.02.2024, which had dismissed the Appellant's application seeking an interim stay and to quash the sale notice dated 16.09.2023. The sale notice pertained to the assets of the Corporate Debtor and the property of Mr. S. Srinivasan, the guarantor. The NCLT dismissed the application on the grounds that the Corporate Debtor had mortgaged the properties to the Bank of Baroda, a secured financial creditor, and allowed the joint sale of the properties of the Corporate Debtor and the guarantor.
The Appellant contended that the sale notice should be stayed and set aside. However, the NCLAT noted that a subsequent e-auction notice dated 15.02.2024 had resulted in the sale of certain properties, and the Appellant did not challenge this later notice. The NCLAT highlighted that the failure to challenge the subsequent e-auction notice amounted to waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel by conduct on the part of the Appellant.
Given these circumstances, the NCLAT found the appeal to be futile and dismissed it at the admission stage. The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the dismissal did not preclude the Appellant from seeking redressal before a competent forum in accordance with the law. Consequently, the connected interim applications were also closed.
Subscribers can access the case, along with case analysis, case research, ratio decidendi, headnotes, briefs, caselaw cross-references, etc. etc.
Click on the Citation
Comments