Kashvi Power & Steel Pvt Ltd vs 1.Modern India Con Cast Limited In ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 755 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority cannot direct payment of storage charges to a party where no such claim was made before the resolution professional or the liquidator, and no such direction was issued in the impugned order. Where the transformer forming part of the corporate debtor's assets has already been sold to the successful auction purchaser, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the liquidator to sell it again and distribute the sale proceeds; such a direction is set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 755 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2069 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Kashvi Power & Steel Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant
Vs.
Modern India Con Cast Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Shambo Nandy, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Mr. Arijit Mazumdar, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Utsav Mukherjee, Mr. Jaiveer Kant and Mr. Hardik Khatri, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Mr. Debashis Mukherjee and Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Advocates for R-2.
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 599 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjai Kumar Gupta ....Appellant
Vs.
Brand Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Advocate For Respondent: Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Mr. Debashis Mukherjee and Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
09.09.2022: Both these appeals have been filed against the same
impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law
Tribunal, Kolkata Bench-I, Kolkata) dated 20.04.2022 by which Adjudicating
Authority has disposed of I.A. (IB) No. 803/KB/ 2021 directing the Respondent Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 755, 599 of 2022 2
'Modern India Con Cast Ltd.' to handover physical position of the transformer
to the liquidator within one week from the date on which the repairs are paid in
full by the Liquidator, in paragraph 11 following direction is issued:-
In these circumstances, we direct the Respondent to handover physical possession of the transformer to the Liquidator within one week from the date on which the repairs are paid for in full by the Liquidator. The Liquidator is directed to treat such payment as part of the liquidation cost and the Liquidator shall sell the same and distribute the sale amount as per the Code and Liquidation Regulations."
2. Aggrieved by the order, both, the Appellant 'Kashvi Power & Steel Pvt.
Ltd.' who is a auction purchaser as a going concern, as well as the liquidator,
has come up in this appeal. Reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent
where in paragraph 6 of the Reply it has been claimed that Respondents are
entitled for storage charges @ Rs. 10,500/- per day.
3. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the respondent has no
objection in returning the transformer to the liquidator on 'as is where is' basis.
4. It is further submitted by the Appellant that the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs
was advanced for repair for which counsel for the respondent submits that for
the amount received, the repairs were already made, however, no further
amount is to be paid to the respondent for returning the transformer.
5. Coming to the claim of the respondent for storage charges, it is clear that
in paragraph 11 of the order no such direction has been issued for storage
charges and further we are of the view that no claim has been made for storage
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 755, 599 of 2022 3
charges either before the RP or before the liquidator. There can't be any
direction for payment of any storage charges.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of both the Appeals by deleting the
direction issued in paragraph 11 for payment of repairs in full.
7. Counsel for the Appellant further submits that direction of the
Adjudicating Authority to sell the transformer and distribute the amount
received from the same, needs also be set aside. Transformer was part of assets
of the Corporate Debtor and were already sold to the Appellant 'Kashvi Power &
Steel Pvt. Ltd.'
8. We find substance in the submissions that the transformer having
already been sold to the Successful Auction Purchaser, direction issued by the
Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order to the effect that liquidator shall
sell and distribute the same, also need to be set aside. The Appeals are allowed
to the extent indicated above.
9. The Respondent submits that the transformer shall be handed over to
the liquidator within two weeks from today.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
sa/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 755, 599 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