Angaraj Vanijya Private Limited vs Rohit Ferro Tech Limited & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 929 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A claimant who has not filed a claim with the Resolution Professional or before the Adjudicating Authority, and who first seeks relief by way of an application filed after the Resolution Plan of the corporate debtor has been approved, cannot obtain relief against the corporate debtor in that application; the Adjudicating Authority is right to reject such an application, as no relief can be granted to a claimant in those circumstances.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Angaraj Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant Vs.
Rohit Ferro Tech Limited & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellant: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, Mr. Mukul Katyal, Advocates.
For Respondents: Ms. Niharika Sharma, Mr. Udit Mendiratta, Advocates for RA.
ORDER
05.08.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.06.2022 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata
Bench, Kolkata, by which Application filed by the Appellant has been rejected.
Appellant claim that he has issued purchase order to the Corporate Debtor for
delivery of 2764 MT of stainless steel. The Corporate Debtor has not supplied
as per purchase order.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he has written letter to
the Resolution Professional much before approval of the Resolution Plan but
no response was received from the Resolution Professional.
4. The Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor was approved on
07.04.2022 and the Appellant filed the I.A on 13.05.2022 subsequent to
approval of Resolution Plan where he claimed that he should be compensated 2
for sum of Rs.5,70,90,760/- which Application has been rejected by the
Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant having not filed any claim before the
Adjudicating Authority and the Application came to be filed after approval of
the Resolution Plan, we see no reason how any relief could have been granted
to the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected IA filed by the
Appellant. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Adjudicating
Authority. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 929 of 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free