Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2021) 11 NCLAT CK 0054

Vijay Infrastructure Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 24 November 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Jarat Kumar Jain, Member (J) · Dr Alok Srivastava, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 944 of 2021

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

6 paragraphs · 322 words
1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal'), Mumbai Bench, Court No.1 in C.P.(IB) No. 494/MB/2019 on IA No. 1921/2021.

2.

The Appellant before us has filed an intervention application before the 'Adjudicating Authority'. The 'NCLT' has noted the facts of the case in paragraph 2 which needs no repetition here. In so far as the claim of the Appellant is concerned, that has been taken note and considered by the 'Adjudicating Authority' in paragraph 17 of the judgement (impugned order) which is to the following effect: -

"17 Coming to the issue of Vijay Infrastructure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (VIT), it must be remembered that VIT is a group/sister company of the Corporate Debtor. IA No. 2107 of 2021 filed by the VIT that seeks intervention is a futile attempt by the Ex-Directors of the Corporate Debtor to obstruct these proceedings. All challenges to the Arbitral Award have been rejected right upto the Apex Court. The attempt on the part of the Ex-Directors to intervene in the proceedings, had been rejected the Bombay High Court. Infact, the High Court had held that VIT has not right. Hence, this Tribunal need not even bother to look into the claims of VIT."

3.

Against the Appellant who is before us, Arbitration award had become final upto the Apex Court and there has been orders of the Bombay High Court rejecting all objections taken against the award. The 'Adjudicating Authority' has rightly issued directions as contained in paragraph 18 which is in consonance of the judgements of the Apex Court as well as of the Bombay High Court passed in the proceedings between the parties.

4.

We are of the view that the Appellant has no right of whatsoever and at the instance of the Appellant, this appeal need not be entertained. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.