Allowed

L and T Finance Ltd. v. Mrs. Rupali Nilesh Herkal and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2011ARBP/770/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed the arbitration petition, directing the appointment of a Court Receiver. The Receiver will take possession of the hypothecated tractor and appoint the primary respondent as his agent to facilitate its use while protecting the petitioner's security interest.

What did the court decide?

The arbitration petition is allowed; Court Receiver to be appointed for the vehicle with authority to appoint respondent No.1 as agent.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Mrs. Rupali Nilesh Herkal and 2 Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

ARBP770-10

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.770 OF 2010

¶5

L & T Finance Ltd .. Petitioner Versus Rupali Nilesh Herkal & Ors .. Respondents

¶6

Ms.S.I.Joshi i/by S.I.Joshi & Co for the petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24^th January 2011.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

. Heard finally in terms of the earlier order.

¶10

2 The petitioner is the finance company which has extended a loan-cum-

¶11

finance facility against hypothecation of a tractor to the respondent.

¶12

3 It is pointed out that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement petitioner had a right to inspect the tractor and if any requisition in that behalf is forwarded, the respondent-borrower has to abide by it. The loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs in terms of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 6^th November 2007. After my attention is invited to this agreement, it is contended that the respondent’s account was irregular and no

¶13

ARBP770-10

¶14

¶15

installments were forwarded. A legal notice was also sent and ultimately the petitioner appointed a sole arbitrator in terms of the agreement.

¶16

4 On the date of filing of the petition a sum of Rs.3,88,444/- with interest is due and payable as per the particulars of the claim. The petitioner has expressed an apprehension that the hypothecated vehicle may be alienated and disposed off as the petitioner has not been allowed to inspect it and even its location is not disclosed.

¶17

5 In the light of the statements made in the petition and particularly from paras 13 to 20 of the petition, I am satisfied that it is just and convenient that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed as the Receiver of the said vehicle but on taking possession the Receiver should appoint the respondent No.1 as his agent on such terms and conditions including payment of royalty, which shall be determined bearing in mind the loan-cumhypothecation agreement and the terms thereof.

¶18

6 On the last occasion Hon’ble Mr.Justice Vazifdar adjourned the matter at the request of the advocates till today but passed an interim order directing the respondent to inform the petitioner’s advocate in writing on or before 28^th

¶19

ARBP770-10 3

¶20

December 2010, the location of the vehicle.

¶21

7 It is rightly brought to my notice by Ms.Joshi that neither any intimation has been given with regard to location of the vehicle nor any affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents. They and their advocates are absent today.

¶22

8 In these circumstances and when it is just and convenient to appoint Court Receiver bearing in mind the apprehension expressed and injunction order will not give sufficient protection, this arbitration petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (c) and (e). Needless, therefore, to add that when the Court Receiver takes possession of the vehicle more particularly described in prayer clause (a) and Schedule F to the petition, he shall appoint respondent No.1 as his agent on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper including payment of royalty.

¶23

9 The petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶24

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

L and T Finance Ltd. v. Mrs. Rupali Nilesh Herkal and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L and T Finance Ltd. v. Mrs. Rupali Nilesh Herkal and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dighi Port Limited Vs Dighi Koli Samaj Mumbai Rahivasi Sangh and Ors.

Veena Diecasters and Engineers Private Limited Vs ----------------------------------------

Sipra Services and Investments Private Limited Vs --------------------------------------

Mithalal B. Gurjar and Anr. Vs Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. and Anr.

S.R. Themocole (Eps) Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs Ipca Laboratories Ltd. and Anr.