NCLT Kolkata Refuses To Invalidate Shree Padmawati Metaliks CIRP Bidding Process After Applicant Skips Participation

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata, has refused to interfere with the bidding process in the insolvency of Shree Padmawati Metaliks Pvt. Ltd., holding that where an applicant, despite opportunity, chose not to participate in the bidding process, no case was made out to declare the process illegal or to direct a re-run of the CIRP.

The bench of Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra was dealing with applications filed by City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. against the resolution professional and State Bank of India.

City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. had asked the Tribunal to declare the bidding process held on August 18, 2025 as “illegal, null and void”, and to direct that the CIRP be carried out afresh in a fair and transparent manner.

Its case rested on alleged inconsistencies across three versions of the Information Memorandum, particularly in disclosures relating to land parcels, encumbrances, and other asset details, which, it said, hampered meaningful due diligence.

It further claimed that the Swiss Challenge process did not afford it a fair opportunity to participate, pointing to short timelines and lack of clarity around the bidding process.

On reviewing the different versions of the Information Memorandum, the tribunal found that the Resolution Professional had been updating disclosures as additional information about the corporate debtor's assets came to light. These revisions, the bench noted, formed part of the process of collating and refining asset details. On the material placed before it, the tribunal found no discrepancy or infirmity in the inclusion of additional land or in the disclosures made in the updated memorandum.

The bench further noted that the applicant had submitted resolution plans based on the same Information Memorandum and had not raised any objection for a considerable period despite being aware of its contents. It also recorded that, despite opportunity, the applicant chose not to participate in the bidding process.

“In view of the above,” the Tribunal held, “no case has been made out for declaring the whole bidding process… as illegal, null and void or of rerunning the CIRP process etc. as prayed for.”

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

A connected plea seeking to stall the approval of the resolution plan was also disposed of, the tribunal observing that in light of the dismissal of the main application, nothing survived for adjudication.