AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Mr. Saurav Kalia and Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 14th July, 2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. By which Order, I.A.(IB) No. 76/CB/2022 filed by the Appellant and I.A.(IB)No. 134/CB/2022 filed by the Respondent No. 2 has been decided. The Appellant has participated in the Auction held on 08.09.2020 and was successful bidder-H2 who was offered to take the plant and machinery subsequently. In the premises, Coal of 2350 MT was lying which was not permitted to be lifted to the Appellant by the Liquidator. Subsequently the Liquidator on 11.03.2022 separately issued re-auction of 2350 MT. Aggrieved by the Auction Notice for auction of 2350 MT Coal, the Appellant filed an I.A. for setting aside the Auction Notice. Respondent No. 2-Hira Ferro Alloys Limited also filed an Application claiming him to be successful auction purchaser in the auction held on 11.03.2022 and should be allowed to lift the coal 2350 MT.
The Adjudicating Authority heard the parties and by the Impugned Order has rejected the I.A. No. 76 of 2022 filed by the Appellant and allowed the I.A. No. 134 of 2022.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order contends that when Auction took place on 08.09.2020 the coal which was lying in the premises was also auctioned along with the auction of all other consumables and Liquidator had no authority to auction the said coal subsequently. It was very much included in the Auction in favour of the Appellant. It is further submitted that Liquidator could not have conducted any fresh auction for the coal which was part of the 08th Auction held on 08.09.2020. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority erred in observing in paragraph 10 and 13 that 0.5 ton CP Coke was lying at the site when there was no material to indicate that 0.5 ton CP Coke was lying in the site.
We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The auction in favour of the Appellant on 08.09.2020 was with regard to the Plant and Machinery along with the said auction stock (consumable inventory) was mentioned therein which is to the following effect:
Section
Item
Technical Specs
Year
Stock (Consumables Inventory)
I. FINISHED GOODS –Ferro Silicon 24MT. II. RAW MATERIAL STOCK – Iron Ore Fines, CP Coke, Dolomite, Quartz, Magnesium Ore, C.E. Paste. III. CONSUMABLE GOODS – Lancing Pipes, Copper Tubes etc. lying
2010-11
The issue in the present Appeal is with regard to 2350 MT Coal. Coal and CP Coke are two different items with different qualities and price. The Stock Consumables Inventory which was to be auctioned along with plant and machinery has been clearly delineated in the Auction Notice as extracted above. The said inventory does not include 2350 MT Coal which was subsequently put to auction by the Liquidator, whether it was by ignorance or mistake that Coal was not included is not question which need to detain us. When the coal 2350 MT was not mentioned and stock of consumables inventory was provided which does not mention the coal, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the I.A(s) of the Appellant where he prayed to be permitting him for lifting 2350 MT Coal. The 2350 MT Coal was included in the subsequent auction held on 11.03.2022 in favour of the Respondent No. 2. There are no good ground to entertain this Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.