AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
11.03.2022 The Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent are present.
From the perusal of the order dated 19.01.2022 it appears that the Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. Krishnendu Datta appeared on behalf of the Appellant in all three Appeals and submitted that the parties have settled the matter outside the Court.
I.A. No. 186 of 2022 has been filed by the Respondent in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 250 of 2021 in which para 5 and 6 read hereunder:
“ 5. That it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of this Appeal, the Appellant has itself accepted and acted on the Impugned Order and proceeded to conduct an auction of certain assets, a few of which from the subject matter of the present Appeal. The Appellant had issued an advertisement and subsequently a process document for sale of the subject Tugs on 29.07.2021. On 29.07.2021 the Appellant issued an Advertisement seeking to conduct the fourth (“4”) E-auction of the assets of the Appellant on 28.08.2021. A perusal of the said advertisement showed that Tag Mamta, Tag Rajvir, Tag Lakshmi, Tag Sia and Tag Shiv, which are the subject matter of the present Appeal had been put to e-auction. These subsequent facts were brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal vide Additional Affidavit dated 23.08.2021 filed by the Respondent.
6.That subsequent to the re-auction, the Appellant has successfully sold at least 3 of the 5 vessels the Respondent had bid for i.e., Tag mamta, tag Rajvir and Tag Laxmi to one ‘Hoger Offshore and Marine Private Ltd’. The Respondent wishes to place on record the Certificates of Indian Registry pertaining to Tag mamta, Tag Rajvir and Tag Laxmi confirming the sale to ‘Hoger Offshore and Marine Private Ltd’, annexed herewith as Annexure-R1 (Colly) at page 9 to 12 of the I.A. No. 186 of 2022. Hence, it clearly establishes that part of the subject matter of the present Appeal no longer exists and even if the Impugned order is set aside, the Appellant cannot sell and handover possession of the assets to the Respondent as some of the assets have already been sold by the Appellant to third parties. To reiterate, the Appellant himself has made the present appeal infructuous by making his own prayers impossible to be granted and/or implemented. In these given circumstances, the present Appeal has become infructuous, and the Appellant has no right whatsoever to continue to illegally retain the EMD deposited by the Respondent.”
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent.
In view of the submissions made by the parties, these instant Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and as not pressed.