Disposed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Intellect Data Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2004ARBP/233/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is an ad-interim order in Arbitration Petition No.233 of 2004. The court upheld its jurisdiction despite the agreement being executed in Bangalore, citing the place of rent payment. It granted the appointment of a Court Receiver with only symbolic possession of equipment pending an offer of agency, which must be accepted within six weeks, otherwise physical possession would be taken.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim order granting appointment of Court Receiver with symbolic possession; notice of final hearing directed.

IN	THE HIGH	COURT OF JUDICATURE AT	BOMBAY
	ORDINARY	ORIGINAL CIVIL	JURISDICTION
	ARBITRATION	PETITION NO.233 O	F 2004
Kotak Mahindra	Bank Ltd. v/s	... Petitioners
Intellect	Data	Systems and	Software
Pvt.Ltd. and anr.		... Respondents
Mr B.B.	Saraf i/b	M/s Mehta Laljee and	Co. for
Petitioners.
None		for	Respondents.
CORAM DATE	: :	D.K.DESHMUKH 10TH AUGUST	J. 2004

THE
HIGH

COURT
OF
JUDICATURE
AT

BOMBAY

ORDINARY

ORIGINAL
CIVIL

JURISDICTION

ARBITRATION

PETITION
NO.233
O

F
2004

Kotak Mahindra

Bank Ltd.
v/s

... Petitioners

Intellect

Data

Systems
and

Software

Pvt.Ltd. and anr.

... Respondents

Mr
B.B.

Saraf
i/b

M/s
Mehta
Laljee
and

Co.
for

Petitioners.

None

for

Respondents.

CORAM
DATE

:
:

D.K.DESHMUKH
10TH
AUGUST

J.
2004

1.		Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
None	app	ears for the respondents though the	matter	was
kept	back	at the request of the resp	ondents.	The
respondents		have filed reply, only raising	object	ion to
the	juris	diction o this Court to entertain	the	petition
on	the	ground that the agreement has been	executed	at
Bangalore.		however, perusal of the promissory	note	at
Exh.D-1	sho	ws that the lease rental was	payabl	e at
Bombay.		Therefore, it prima facie appears	that	this
Court	has	jurisdiction to entertain	this	petition.
Considering		that there is no dispute	raised	for
existence		of the agreement, outstanding amou	nt	towards
lease	rentals,	it is necessary to grant	ad-interim	order
in	terms	of prayer clause (a) excluding	the	bracketed
portion.		It is so granted. The Court	Receiver	shall
not i	nitially	take physical possession of	the	equipments
but sh	all	take only symbolic possession and	offer	agency
to the	res	pondents to be in possession of	the	equipments
on	usual	terms and conditions including	royalty	and
security.		If the agency agreement is not	executed	by
the	respon	dents within six weeks from the	date on	which
offer	is	made, the Court Receiver shall	take	physical

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

None

app

ears
for
the
respondents
though
the

matter

was

kept

back

at
the
request
of
the
resp

ondents.

The

respondents

have
filed
reply,
only
raising

object

ion
to

the

juris

diction
o
this
Court
to
entertain

the

petition

the

ground
that
the
agreement
has
been

executed

Bangalore.

however,
perusal
of
the
promissory

note

Exh.D-1

sho

ws
that
the
lease
rental
was

payabl

e
at

Bombay.

Therefore,
it
prima
facie
appears

that

this

Court

has

jurisdiction
to
entertain

this

petition.

Considering

that
there
is
no
dispute

raised

for

existence

of
the
agreement,
outstanding
amou

towards

lease

rentals,

it
is
necessary
to
grant

ad-interim

order

terms

of
prayer
clause
(a)
excluding

the

bracketed

portion.

It
is
so
granted.
The
Court

Receiver

shall

not
i

nitially

take
physical
possession
of

the

equipments

but
sh

all

take
only
symbolic
possession
and

offer

agency

to
the

res

pondents
to
be
in
possession
of

the

equipments

usual

terms
and
conditions
including

royalty

and

security.

If
the
agency
agreement
is
not

executed

the

respon

dents
within
six
weeks
from
the

date
on

which

offer

made,
the
Court
Receiver
shall

take

physical

possession	of	the	equipments	and deli	ver	it t	o the
petitioners,	also		as agents	of the	Court	Receiver,	on
usual	terms	and	conditions	except	royalty	and	security.
The	petitioners	to	issue not	ice of	final	hearing	of the
petition	to	the	respondents,	returnable	on	24th	August
2004.	Till	the	Court	Receiver	take	s	possession,

possession

the

equipments

and
deli

ver

it
t

o
the

petitioners,

also

as
agents

of
the

Court

Receiver,

usual

terms

and

conditions

except

royalty

and

security.

The

petitioners

issue
not

ice
of

final

hearing

of
the

petition

the

respondents,

returnable

24th

August

2004.

Till

the

Court

Receiver

take

possession,

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Intellect Data Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Intellect Data Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Green Garden Apartments Co-Ophsg.S.Ltd. Vs N.G.Sawant and Ors.

Sundaram Enterprises Vs Sunil R.Bajaj

Satyam Enterprises Vs Sunil R.Bajaj and Anr.

Shri a.S.Nanjunda Shetty Vs Tata Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Paaterson and Co. P.Ltd. Vs Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Bagwan Pandey