M/S. Teestavalley Power Transmission ... vs M/S Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 28 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting a creditor's claim that was pending in arbitration, and held that the rejection does not bar the appellant from enforcing any arbitral award it may obtain under the law, the impugned order not standing in the way of its execution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: M/s Teestavalley Power Transmission Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. M/s Abir Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through its Resolution Professional ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Dr. U.K.Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocates For Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Ray, Advocate for R1, RP Mr. P.Ramesh Babu, Advocate
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
18.01.2022: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
28.10.2021 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' in IA No. 3534/2021 filed
by the Appellant. Appellant has filed its claim which was not entertained by
the RP. He has filed the IA seeking acceptance of his claim.
2. The case of the Appellant was that there is already an 'Arbitration
Proceedings' going on with regard to claim of the Appellant qua the 'Corporate
Debtor' and in the impugned order, no credence have been given to such
arbitration proceeding and in the event, the claim is accepted by the Tribunal,
the rejection of claim may have adverse effect on the rights of the Appellant.
3. We are of the view that there is no ground to entertain this appeal
challenging the order of the 'Adjudicating Authority'.
4. We only observe that if the arbitration proceedings result in any award
in favour of the Appellant, it shall be open to the Appellant to take such
remedy as permissible under the law and impugned order shall not be come
in his way in execution of the Arbitral Award. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 28 of 2022 1 With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 28 of 2022 2
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