Allowed

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Rajesh D. Madhavi and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2012ARBP/377/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the petitioner in an arbitration petition under Section 9 to sell a hypothecated vehicle by private treaty and appropriate proceeds towards dues, while directing urgent appointment of an arbitrator within one week.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to sell the vehicle by private treaty and appropriate proceeds towards dues; arbitrator to be appointed within one week.

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh D. Madhavi and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2012)

hvn

ARBP377.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 377 OF 2012

¶7

Shriram Transport Finance Com. Ltd. …. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Rajesh Dashrath Madhavi and another … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Pramod Bhosale i/by Ms. Disha Karambar for the petitioner.

¶11

None for respondents.

¶12

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1. This petition under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has

¶15

been filed by the petitioner for appointment of court receiver in respect of the equipment/vehicle described in Exh. E to the petition and for a liberty to sell the same by way of private treaty and to appropriate the sale proceeds of the said equipments towards the outstanding dues of the respondent.

¶16

By order dated 14^th March, 2012 passed by Anoop V. Mohta,J. ad interim oder in terms of prayer clause (a) except the bracketed portion was granted. It is observed that prima facie amounts are due and payable under the loan-cumhypothecation agreement by the respondents to the petitioner and the same are secured by hypothecation of the vehicles. By the said order, the respondent had been directed to be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver. The matter thereafter

hvn

ARBP377.12

appeared on board on 1^st August, 2012 when the first respondent was present. The first respondent made a statement that the vehicle which was hypothecated to the petitioner was in custody of one Mr. Suresh Patil since last 1.1/2 years. By an order dated 1^st August, 2012 passed by S.J. Kathawala,J. said Mr. Suresh Patil was directed to appear before this court on 6^th August, 2012. On 6^th August, 2012, Suresh Patil remained absent though served. By the said order, the Court Receiver came to be appointed as Receiver of the vehicle with a direction to take possession thereof. The police officials of the concerned police station were directed to provide all cooperation to the representative of the Court Receiver in taking possession and if necessary forcibly and to bring it to the parking yard of the petitioner at Kalyan. On 8^th August, 2012, this court passed an order putting the parties to notice that the court may pass orders directing the Court receiver to get the vehicles valued and sold in public auction and adjourned the matter to 14^th August,. 2012 for hearing and final disposal. The Petitioner was directed to serve copy of the said order on the respondent as well as Mr. Suresh Patil.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered affidavit dated 27^th August, 2012. The deponent of the said affidavit has deposed that when he reached the residential address of Mr. Suresh Patil, he was not personally present. However, his brother Mr. Gorakh Patil refused to accept the service of copy of the order dated 8^th August, 2012 and therefore, he returned back without effecting the service. The affidavit is taken on record.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner informs that pursuant to the order

hvn

ARBP377.12

passed by this court on 6^th August, 2012, the Court receiver has also taken possession of vehicle viz. Model JCB India Ltd. Make 2004, Engine NO. 4H20790402616, Chassis : 1031590 & Registration no. MH 04 DT 206. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner be permitted to auction the vehicle by way of private treaty and to appropriate the sale proceeds of the equipment towards the outstanding amount. The learned counsel submits that substantial amounts are due and payable by the first respondent to the petitioner. In my view the petitioner has made out a case for interim protection under section 9 of the Act. The vehicle which is subject matter of the Arbitration agreement is required to be sold so as to recover the proceeds and to appropriate the same towards the outstanding dues of the petitioner. I, therefore, pass the following order :

¶27

The Petitioner is permitted to sell the said vehicle by private treaty and to appropriate the sale proceeds of the said equipments towards the amount, if any, of the petitioners. It is made clear that the petitioner shall give notice to the borrower and give him an opportunity to participate in the bid. The Petitioner is also directed to take urgent appropriate steps to appoint the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator be appointed within one week from the date of this order. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Rajesh D. Madhavi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Rajesh D. Madhavi and Anr.

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

Roopchand M. Jain Vs Chandraprakash S. Malani and Anr.

Imc Ltd. Vs Ineos Abs (India) Ltd.

Dena Bank Vs Nilesh Karunakar Shetty and 3 Ors.

Kalpana Munish Bumb Vs Joindre Capital Services Ltd. and Anr.

Hanjer Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs the Memon Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Kalpana Munish Bumb Vs Joindre Capital Services Ltd. and Anr.