NCLT reopens applications against Punj Lloyd

The scheduled auction on July 10 could be rushed and not allow enough time for potential bidders to thoroughly assess the company's situation and make informed decisions.

The approval from the Shareholders Consultative Committee for the auction might not represent the best interests of all shareholders, potentially disadvantaging some parties.

Granting a 6-month extension for the liquidator to complete the process implies a lack of efficiency and effectiveness in resolving the case.

The lack of clarification on Section 14(3)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code raises doubts about the understanding and interpretation of the law by the tribunal.

The invocation of bank guarantee by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Limited seems arbitrary and lacking sufficient evidence of the corporate debtor's failure to conduct repairs.

The liquidator's non-response to the claims of the Airports Authority of India raises concerns about transparency and accountability in the resolution process.

Comparing the case to the invocation of bank guarantee by IOCL and GAIL does not provide a strong argument, as each case should be judged on its individual merits.

Allowing Punj Lloyd to file written submissions through the registry can further delay the resolution process and prolong the uncertainty for all parties involved.

The reserve price of ₹1,061 crore set by the Punj Lloyd liquidator might not accurately reflect the true value of the company, potentially leading to a suboptimal outcome for the stakeholders.

I'm not good enough at the detailed aspects of the matter

The adjournment of the petitions filed by the Airports Authority of India and GAIL India Limited shows a lack of urgency and delays justice.