# In the matter of Concast Steel & Power Limited Vs. Sarat Chatterjee And Co. (VSP) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. I.A. G.A. NO. 7 & 8 of 2021 And I.A. G.A. NO. 8 of 2022
in C.S. NO. 77 of 2013

> HC judgment dated 2022-03-08. Citation: TCN-2022-HC-00057. The case revolves around the principles of abatement when a plaintiff is declared insolvent by the…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 8 Mar 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-HC-00057
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/concast-steel-power-limited-vs-sarat-chatterjee-and-co-vsp-pvt-ltd-ors-ia-ga-no-7fbc6844

## Summary

### Background

The case revolves around the principles of abatement when a plaintiff is declared insolvent by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The applicant/defendant no. 2 filed G.A. No. 7 of 2021 seeking dismissal of the suit on grounds of abatement and restraint of the Special Officer from valuation and sale of goods. The plaintiff filed G.A. No. 8 of 2021 seeking amendment to bring the liquidator on record. The present suit was originally instituted by Dankuni Steels Ltd, which later amalgamated with the present plaintiff company. The suit concerns 11,074.09 Metric Tonnes of Met coke lying at Visakhapatnam. The court had previously ordered the sale of 10,000 MTs of Met Coke to secure the claim of defendant No.2/applicant and appointed a Special Officer for the sale. The

…

## Facts

Dankuni Steels Ltd. originally filed a suit regarding 11,074.09 Metric Tonnes of Met coke at Visakhapatnam. Dankuni Steels Ltd. amalgamated with the present plaintiff company, who was originally defendant no. 4. Defendant No.2/applicant has a claim on 10,000 MTs of the goods. The court appointed a Special Officer to sell 10,000 MTs of Met Coke to secure the claim of defendant No.2/applicant. The Supreme Court set aside an earlier order and directed a fresh valuation and public notice for bids. The plaintiff went into liquidation on September 26, 2018, by order of the NCLT, Kolkata Bench. Defendant no. 1 made an application in October 2018 claiming reliefs related to the goods. The liquidator participated in meetings regarding the sale of the goods. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the suit abated due to the …

**Ratio:** Order 22 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the insolvency of a plaintiff

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the liquidator had not declined to pursue the suit and had been

…

**Interpretation:** Order 22 Rule 8 is interpreted to mean that liquidation alone is insufficient

…

**Application:** Since the liquidator did not decline to continue the suit and actively

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Shekhar B.…
- **Appellants:** Concast Steel &…; Concast Steel and…
- **Respondents:** Dankuni Steels…; SARAT CHATTERJEE…

## Timeline

- **2013-01-01 — Suit Fil…**: C.S. No. 77 of 2013…
- **2014-07-16 — Interlocutor…**: Court passed an interlocutory…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/concast-steel-power-limited-vs-sarat-chatterjee-and-co-vsp-pvt-ltd-ors-ia-ga-no-7fbc6844