Bansal Ship Breakers vs Great United Energy Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 58 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The buyer at an auction conducted on an "as is where is, as is what is, whatever there is and no recourse" basis is liable for port charges accruing on the auctioned asset after the issuance of the sale certificate, notwithstanding that actual physical possession had not been handed over to him. Where the appellant had in fact received possession of the ship and the asset remained lying at the port, port charges accruing on it are payable by the auction purchaser, and the liquidator may appropriate such charges against amounts refundable to that purchaser without any illegality in the adjudicating authority's direction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Bansal Ship Breakers ....Appellant
Vs.
Great United Energy Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Akshay Jain, CA, Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Aniruth Purusothaman, Mr. Rajesh Mittal, for Liquidator
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.01.2024: Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for
the liquidator.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I in IA No. 372/2021.
3. Adjudicating Authority has partly allowed the IA No. 372/2021 and 820
of 2021 in paragraph 8.3 following direction have been issued:
"8.3 As regards Liquidator's claim for the Port Charges, we find that the sale was concluded on the 'as is where is basis, as is what is basis, whatever there is and No recourse basis', and the Auction Buyer was liable to bear the port charges after issuance of sale certificate. In the present case the sale certificate was issued on 26.02.2020, the port charges after this date are payable by the Auction buyer. The Liquidator may appropriate the amount of Port Charges determined accordingly and set off against the GST amount held refundable as aforesaid".
-2- 4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant who is
Successful Bidder was not handed over the possession of the Ship, Hence, he
is not liable to pay the port charges. It is submitted that he having not received
the possession there was no liability to fastened on the Appellant for port
charges.
5. The fact remains that the Appellant has received the possession of the
ship on December, 2020 and the port charges accrues on the ship since, it was
laying in the port and we are of the view that no illegality has been committed
by Adjudicating Authority directing the port charges and adjusted and set off
against the GST amount which is to be refunded to the Appellant.
6. Ld. Counsel for the liquidator further submits that after impugned order
appellant has written to the liquidator that he is ready to comply the order and
hence liquidator has already sent the Cheque for amount to be refunded to the
Appellant which has been encashed.
7. In view of the aforesaid reason, we do not entertain the appeal.
8. Recording the aforesaid statement, we close the case.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) sr/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 58 of 2024
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