The Supreme Court will hear the petition filed by Torrent Group against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) order permitting a second e-auction for Reliance Capital (RCap) on March 20.
The second round of the auction — scheduled on the same date — is unlikely to take place till the apex court gives its direction. This would further delay the corporate insolvency resolution process of the former Anil Ambani group company.
Torrent Investments, a group company through which the Gujarat-based Torrent Group had placed its bid for the entire assets of RCap, had sought an urgent hearing of the petition ahead of the second challenge mechanism.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Shyam Diwan appeared for Torrent and Pooja Dhar appeared on behalf of the committee of creditors (CoC).
Last week, Torrent had moved the apex against the NCLAT’s March 2 order. In its filing, the Gujarat-based company has termed the administrator’s decision to hold another round of the challenge process “illegal”, and sought a faster and time-bound conclusion of the bankruptcy process.
It had also sought the ₹9,000-crore offer by IndusInd International Holdings, the firm through which the Hinduja Group has placed bids, be declared “invalid” as it was made after the first e-auction was completed. Torrent also wanted its ₹8,640-crore bid to be termed as the final one.
The NCLAT in its order had permitted holding a second e-auction for RCap, allowing the lenders’ plea who wanted to “maximise value” of the debt-laden firm as the bids received were “sub-optimal and unsatisfactory”.
The appellate tribunal had also told the CoC to take steps for further negotiations with resolution applicants as per the relevant clauses of the resolution plan. The order enabled the CoC to negotiate and call for higher bids.
In February, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal had declared the proposed second e-auction as violation of bankruptcy rules and termed Torrent Group the highest bidder under the first challenge mechanism. It had directed the administrator to take the process to its “logical conclusion”.