Dismissed

Housing Industrial Sevices Pvt. Ltd. v. Housing Development Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2005APP/327/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an ad-interim order appointing a receiver. The court affirmed the Single Judge's decision that plaintiffs were not at fault for retaining a flat offered as interim security while the primary mortgaged property remained unsecured.

What did the court decide?

The motion was made absolute in terms of the prayer clause, upholding the appointment of the receiver.

Housing Industrial Sevices Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

 Appeal (Ld) No. 802 of 2004
 in
 Notice of Motion No.1996 of 2002
 in

¶3

 Suit No. 2470 of 2002

¶4

 1. Express Industrial Services
 Private Limited and ors. ..Appellants

¶5

vs.

¶6

 1. Housing Development Finance
 Corporation and ors. ..Respondents

¶7

 Mr.R.A.Dada, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.D.P.Desai for
 appellants

¶8

 Mr.P.K.Samdhani with Ms.Priya Dwarkadas i/b M/s
 Wadia Ghandy & Co. for respondents.

¶9

CORAM: A.P.SHAH &

¶10

S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ.
18th March, 2005

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. Heard Advocates.

¶13

 2. The challenge is to the order passed by the

¶14

 learned single Judge in a Notice of Motion taken

¶15

 out by the plaintiff. By this ad-interim order of
 appointment of the Receiver was confirmed by the
 learned single Judge. The plaintiffs are seeking a
 monetary decree in the sum of Rs.5,07,32,508/- with
 interest. In November 1999 the plaintiffs
 sanctioned a loan of Rs.3.60 crores for a period of
 21 months to defendant no.1. The loan was to be
 secured by mortgaging the office premises owned by

¶16

 defendant no.1 in Mittal Towers, Nariman Point,
 Mumbai. Defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff
 that till the final security of Mittal Towers is
 created and as an interim security the said loan be
 secured by mortgaging an industrial gala owned by
 one Shyama Industrial Industries. Subsequently
 defendant no.1 requested the plaintiffs to release
 the said gala of M/s Shyama Industrial Industries
 and to accept the industrial premises belonging to
 defendant nos. 2 and 3 being flat no.10, 5th
 floor, South Wing, Sterling apartment, till such
 time the security of Mittal Towers property was
 creatred. The loan was thereafter disbursed.
 Defendant no.1 has failed to repay the amount due
 to the plaintiffs and have also failed to create
 the mortgage of Mittal Towers property.

¶17

 3. Today the amount due and payable to the
 plaintiffs is more than Rs.7 crores. There is no
 dispute that the defendants had agreed to repay the
 loan by instalments but nothing has been paid. The
 only submission is that the suit flat was offered
 as security till mortgage in respect of Mittal
 Towers is created. It is admitted position that no
 mortgage was created in respect of Mittal Towers
 premises although it is promised that Mittal Tower
 premises would be secured and the plaintiffs’ loan
 would be paid off no steps were taken to secure

¶18

 that property. In the circumstances the learned
 single Judge has rightly held that no fault could
 be found with the plaintiffs in not releasing the
 flat which was already under mortgage. Therefore,
 no interference is warranted with the order of the
 learned single Judge. Appeal is dismissed.

¶19

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶20

 Notice of Motion No.3752 of 2004
 in
 Appeal (Ld) No. 802 of 2004
 in
 Notice of Motion No.1996 of 2002
 in
 Suit No. 2470 of 2002

¶21

 1. Express Industrial Services
 Private Limited and ors. ..Appellants
 vs.

¶22

 1. Housing Development Finance
 Corporation and ors. ..Respondents
 Mr.R.A.Dada, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.D.P.Desai for
 appellants
 Mr.P.K.Samdhani with Ms.Priya Dwarkadas
 i/b M/s Wadia Ghandy & Co. for respondents.

¶23

CORAM: A.P.SHAH &
S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ.
18th March, 2005
P.C.

¶24

 1. Heard Advocates.

¶25

 2. Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer
 clause (a).

Housing Industrial Sevices Pvt. Ltd. v. Housing Development Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Housing Industrial Sevices Pvt. Ltd. v. Housing Development Corpn. 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

Ramesh Kumbla and Ors. Vs Union Carbide (I) Ltd.and Ors.

M/S. Surajmani Enterprises and Ors. Vs Sudha Dwarkadas Udeshi and Ors.

M/S. Asian Engineerig Sales Corpn. Vs Bank of Baroda

Vasant Bhagwatiprasad Anil and Anr. Vs M/S Bharwani Bros and Co.

Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur Sahi Vs Tejinder Kaur Sahi and Ors.

Arun O.Sirohiwala and Ors. Vs Niranjanlal Kanodia and Ors.