CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 03 NCLT CK 0001

Anneel Saraogi vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Haldia

National Company Law Tribunal · Decided on 3 March 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kishore Vemulapalli, Member (J) · Prabhat Kumar, Member (T)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
IA No.129(MB)/2021 in CP(IB) 2119(MB)/2019

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

5 paragraphs · 336 words

Prabhat Kumar, Member (Technical)

1.

This is an Application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) seeking directions to the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Haldia and GM (Traffic), Haldia Dock Complex, Haldia for release of goods belonging to the Corporate Debtor. The Ld. Resolution Professional has filed a tripartite agreement dated 15.12.2018, which is amongst the Corporate Debtor, Euro Pratik Ispat (India) Pvt. Ltd. (EPIIPL)/(Importer) and RV Logistics(CHA) (RVL).

2.

On perusal of this agreement, it is noted that this agreement pertains to import of 900 MT of Manganese Ore by EPIIPL and the goods so imported were to be handled by RVL. The Corporate Debtor was to take delivery of these goods within 90 days from BL date or within 60 days from discharge of cargo, failing which EPIIPL had the right to dispose of the cargo without notice to the Corporate Debtor and recover loss/damage from the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has not stated when this cargo was imported and whether the title in the goods is transferred in the name of the Corporate Debtor in pursuance of EPIIPL’s directions to RVL.

3.

On perusal of IA-783/2021 it is noticed that the Corporate Debtor had taken certain portion of land from Port of Kolkata for storage of this cargo from 04.01.2019 to 02.02.2019. From this fact, it emerges that the discharge of the cargo was to take place during that period. In terms of tripartite agreement, the delivery of goods was to be allowed by the RVL only against delivery orders/authorization letters issued by IPIIPL. We have not found any evidence placed on record by the RP to prove that EPIIPL had issued any delivery order to RVL transferring the title in the goods to the Corporate Debtor within the period stipulated in the tripartite agreement as stated above.

4.

Accordingly, this Bench is of the view that the goods lying at the storage place does not belonging to the Corporate Debtor. Hence, the present IA-129(MB)/2021 is dismissed as not maintainable and disposed of accordingly.