Disposed

Tata Capital Fiancial Service Ltd. v. Rajeev R Sharma

Bombay HC2 Apr 2013ARBP/188/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration petition, the High Court appointed a Court Receiver for a vehicle pending arbitration and granted an injunction, finding prima facie default by the respondent in loan repayment.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Court Receiver as receiver of vehicle; injunction against dealing with vehicle; liberty to apply for execution post-award or dismissal of challenge.

Tata Capital Fiancial Service Ltd. Vs Rajeev R Sharma — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2013)

hvn

1/3

29-ARBP-188.2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 188 OF 2013

¶7

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

¶8

.. Petitioner

Versus

Rajeev Sharma

.. Respondent

Mr. Rahul Mehta and Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by M/s. KMC Legal Venture for the petitioner.

¶13

None for respondent.

¶14

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATED : 2^nd APRIL, 2013

¶15

P.C.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner files affidavit of service which

¶17

indicates that respondents are served. Affidavit is taken on record.

¶18

By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

¶19

1996, the petitioner seeks appointment of the Court Receiver and injunction in respect of the vehicle described in prayer clause (a) of the petition. The petitioner had granted loan in favour of the respondents in the sum of Rs.7,25,,000/- which

¶20

was re-payable in installments by the respondent to the petitioner. The respondents

¶21

committed default in making payment of installments. On 3^rd December, 2012

hvn

2/3

29-ARBP-188.2013

the petitioner issued notice of termination of the agreement and recalled the entire amount. The respondents have neither made any repayment nor responded to the said notice. The Petitioner apprehends that the respondents may create third party rights in respect of the vehicle which is security in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

None appears for the respondent though served. No affidavit is filed.

¶27

On perusal of the petition and the documents annexed hereto and after hearing Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the prima facie opinion that the respondents have committed default in making repayment of loan in respect of the said vehicle which is security in favour of the petitioner thus is required to be protected.

¶28

I, therefore, pass the following order :

¶29

(a) Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed as Receiver of the

¶30

vehicle described in prayer clause (a) of the petition with a direction to appoint respondent or any third party who is found in custody of the vehicle as agent on usual terms and conditions and on payment of royalty and on furnishing security. It is made clear that if the respondents or such third party does not accept he

¶31

agency of the Court Receiver though offered within the period of two weeks, the

¶32

Court Receiver to take forcible possession of the vehicle and to hand over the custody thereof to the petitioner. The Petitioner shall be then at liberty to apply for

hvn

3/3

29-ARBP-188.2013

further reliefs.

(b) It is made clear that in the event of the learned arbitrator making the award in favour of the petitioner and if the time to challenge the said award expires or if the petition filed by the respondent, if any, is dismissed, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for appropriate orders before the Executing Court.

¶38

(c ) Till the Court Receiver takes possession of the vehicle, there shall be

¶39

injunction in terms of prayer clause (c ).

¶40

(d) Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order

¶41

as to costs.

¶42

[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]

Tata Capital Fiancial Service Ltd. v. Rajeev R Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Fiancial Service Ltd. v. Rajeev R Sharma

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd.

National Highways Authority of India Vs M/S Ashoka Buildcon Ltd(Joint Venture With Birla Gtm Enterpose Ltd)

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd.

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S. Gupta Construction Co.

Tata Capital Fiancial Service Ltd. Vs Dayaram B Kanojia

Tata Capital Fiancial Service Ltd. Vs Online Tourism and Freight Ltd. and Anr.