[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
N C Infracon Private Limited vs Manish Luharuka And Ors on 9 March, 2026
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
2026:CHC-OS:68-DB
OC-1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
IA No. GA-COM/3/2026
In APDT/30/2025
N C INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED
-Vs-
MANISH LUHARUKA AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
-AND-
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
For the Appellant : Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Mondal, Adv.
Mr. Shankharit Chakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Nibedita Pal, Adv.
Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Adv.
HEARD ON : 09.03.2026
DELIVERED ON : 09.03.2026
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant on instruction
submits that appellant is not pressing GA-COM/2/2026.
2. In such circumstances, GA-COM/2/2026 is dismissed as not
pressed.
2026:CHC-OS:68-DB
3. GA-COM/3/2026 is an application for recalling an order of
dismissal of the appeal for default on February 5, 2026.
4. Grounds canvassed for absence of the appellant on February 5,
2026 are that, learned advocate for the appellant was engaged in
another Court and that, the person looking after the affairs of the
appellant was bed- ridden due to medical condition.
5. Respondents are represented.
6. For the interest of justice, causes shown in the application for
restoration are accepted as sufficient. Order dated February 5,
2026 is recalled.
7. GA-COM/3/2026 is allowed.
8. APDT/30/2025 is restored to its file and number.
9. By consent of the appearing parties, the appeal from decree is
taken up for final hearing.
10. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the
appellant raised a triable issue before the learned Single Judge. He
submits that, the learned Single Judge, erred in allowing the
application for judgment on admission.
11. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the
appellant was introduced by a company under the name and style
of ILFS Engineering Limited (ILFS). ILFS suffered a proceeding
under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. In the Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process, the plaintiff/respondent filed a
claim in respect of the very sum claimed as against the appellant,
therein. He submits that, in the Corporate Insolvency
2026:CHC-OS:68-DB
Restructuring Process creditors of ILFS received haircut of their
claim. Therefore, since, the claim made by the plaintiff as against
the appellant in the suit was included in the CIRP of ILFS, the
same raised a triable issue at the very minimum.
12. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws attention of
the Court to the various materials on record. He submits that, the
purchase order dated September 27, 2017 was placed by the
appellant upon the plaintiffs. He submits that, such purchase
order was placed since ILFS introduced the plaintiff to the
appellant. Pursuant to and in terms of such purchase order,
certain bills were raised by the plaintiff on the appellant. ILFS
discharged a part of the liability of the appellant in respect of such
bills. Moreover, as contended above, with the ILFS undergoing
CIRP, the plaintiff lodged its claim therein. He draws the attention
of the Court to the list of creditors and liability of ILFS as on
October 15, 2018 pursuant to claim received upto August 18, 2022
which was considered in the CIRP of ILFS.
13. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention
of the Court to the pleadings before the learned Single Judge. He
submits that, the consistent case of the plaintiff is that, there was
some internal arrangement between the ILFS and the appellant
due to which, certain part payments were made by ILFS. He
submits that on the conspectus of the facts as narrated above, a
triable issue was raised and thereafter an application for
judgement on admission was required to be disallowed. He points
2026:CHC-OS:68-DB
out that all the above contentions were taken in the written
statement filed by the appellant.
14. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits
that, the plaintiff placed a purchase order on the appellant. The
purchase order constitutes an independent contract between the
plaintiff and the appellant. So far as the contention of the
appellant that, the plaintiff lodged a claim with the CIRP of ILFS in
respect of the transaction between the plaintiff and the appellant is
concerned, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits
that the same was in respect of different claims.
15. Learned advocate for the plaintiff submits that, appellant
acknowledged its liability to the plaintiff unconditionally in its
balance sheet till March 31, 2023. Therefore, he contends that, the
defence sought to be raised presently, by way of written statement
or in this appeal, are moonshine.
16. Appellant placed purchase order dated September 27, 2017 on the
plaintiffs for Structural Material Launching Girder of MEGA
Project. Court is informed that the project relates to a Metro
Railway in the city of Ahmedabad.
17. ILFS underwent a CIRP where, apparently, the plaintiff lodged
certain claims against the ILFS. Appellant claimed that it is the
same claim of the plaintiff as against the appellant which was
lodged in the CIRP of the ILFS. Plaintiff claims otherwise. Appellant
is however unable to entertain that the claim lodged by the plaintiff
2026:CHC-OS:68-DB
in CIRP of ILFS was in respect of the claim of the plaintiff against
the appellant.
18. Claim in the CIRP of ILFS was for claims upto October 15, 2018
pursuant to invitation of claims received upto August 18, 2022 as
appearing from the report dated September 30, 2022 prepared by
the resolution professional in such proceedings.
19. Balance sheet of the appellant dated March 31, 2023
acknowledges a liability of 65.29 lakhs as against the plaintiff. The
balance sheet is an unconditional acknowledgement of liability vis-
a-vis the appellant and the plaintiff, more so, since, the
acknowledgement of liability is not qualified by any notes in the
balance sheet. The acknowledgment in the balance sheet appears
in Schedule E to G to the balance sheet under the sub heading of
other current liability.
20. Learned Single Judge noted acknowledgement of liability in the
balance sheet to be unconditional. No other view is plausible in the
facts of the present case.
21. The plea that the appellant seeks now to raise, that is, of internal
arrangement, and claim being wiped off in the CIRP of the ILFS,
cannot be accepted in view of the unconditional acknowledgement
of liability in the balance sheet of the appellant which is
subsequent to the CIRP. Moreover the acknowledgement in the
balance sheet were made by the appellant consistently over a
period of time.
22. In such circumstances, we find no merits in the present appeal.
2026:CHC-OS:68-DB
23. APDT/30/2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
24. I agree
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
sp3
