Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2022) 08 NCLAT CK 0027

Ankur Jain vs Rohit Ferro Tech Limited & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 5 August 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Member (J) · Barun Mitra, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 930 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 292 words
1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

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 order the I.A filed by the Appellant praying for following reliefs have been rejected:-

“i. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly or severally be directed to forthwith make good the losses suffered by the applicant for a sum of Rs.2,88,86,000/- and additionally refund the advance payment of Rs. 3,61,44,726/-.

ii. The amounts as prayed for in prayer (a) be considered as part of the CIRP cost and be accordingly disbursed to the applicant;

iii. The Respondent No.3 be directed to set apart a sum of Rs.2,46,64,200/- as well as a sum of Rs.3,61,44,726/- from the CIRP cost till disposal of this Application”

3.

The Appellant claims to have issued various purchase orders. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in pursuance of the purchase orders, Corporate Debtor did not supply the quantity of goods as agreed. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Resolution Professional has written on 06.04.2022 to the Appellant that orders as demanded by the Appellant shall be fulfilled and supply shall be made. It is submitted that on next date i.e. on 07.04.2022, the Resolution Plan has been approved.

4.

In the present case, the Application was filed by the Appellant after approval of the Resolution Plan and not at the time when even Resolution Plan was pending consideration. The Application filed by the Appellant for prayers as noticed above could not have been entertained by the Adjudicating Authority after the approval of the Resolution Plan and rightly have been rejected. We find no reason to entertain this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.