Allowed

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. v. Anand Earthmovers and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2015ARBP/1267/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This arbitration petition sought appointment of a Court Receiver and interim injunction to safeguard the petitioner's interest in a commercial vehicle due to the respondents' default on loan repayments. The单一-judge bench, finding no defense, appointed the Receiver and granted an interim injunction.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Court Receiver with direction to take possession, option to act as agents, private sale after two weeks, and interim injunction restraining alienation.

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Vs Anand Earthmovers and… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

KPPNair

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1267 OF 2014

¶4

Citi Corp Finance (India) Ltd

¶5

…..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anand Earthmovers & Anr.

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sandesh Godse, i/by M/s.Vivek Patil & Associates., for Petitioner. None for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.

¶11

DATE: 28^th January, 2015

¶12

P . C.

¶13

This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reliefs as prayed against the Respondents. The Arbitration Petition is served on the Respondents and an affidavit proving service is on record. The Petition is today taken up for final hearing. None appear for the Respondents.

¶14

By an Agreement dated 27^th December 2011, the Petitioner had provided a loan of Rs.37,70,000/ to the Respondent No.1 for purchase of commercial vehicle being Model No. EX 200LC having Chassis No. 200113726 more particularly described in Exhibit – D to the Petition (“Said Commercial Vehicle”). By a deed of Hypothecation dated

¶15

KPPNair

¶16

¶17

27.12.2011 the said commercial vehicle was hypothecated with the petitioner by the Respondent No. 1.

¶18

The Loan amount of Rs.37,70,000/- was repayable by the respondents to the petitioner with interest @ 11.46% per annum in monthly installments commencing from 26.01.2012 and ending on 26.12.2014. Therefore, the aggregate amount payable by the Respondents to the petitioner under the loan agreement was Rs. 44,72,928/-.

¶19

Clause 5 of the agreement provides for the events of default; and Clause 16 provides for arbitration. There has been a default on the part of the Respondents. In view thereof both the Respondents became liable to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.10,59,400.40. The Petitioner therefore invoked the arbitration clause in the Agreement dated 27.12.2011.

¶20

In the present Petition, the Petitioner has sought appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay as Receiver of the said commercial vehicle more particularly described in Exhibit – D to the Petition. In absence of any defense or contest by the Respondents, the averments contained in Petition have remained uncontroverted. I see no reason why the statement/submissions made by the Petitioner in the Petition should not be accepted. Since

¶21

¶22

KPPNair

¶23

Respondents have defaulted in repayment of the outstanding dues, it is necessary to safeguard the interest of the Petitioner by appointing the Court Receiver as Receiver of the said commercial vehicle. The appointment of the Receiver is necessary in order to ensure that the said commercial vehicle is not wasted or alienated, thereby defeating the rights of the Petitioner. Section 9 empowers the Court to pass an interim measure of protection. Hence the following order:

¶24

(i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings, the Court Receiver is appointed as Receiver in respect of said commercial vehicle namely Model No. EX 200LC having Chassis No. 200113726 more particularly described in Exhibit - D to the Petition, with direction to take forcible possession of the same with police assistance, if required, and without any prior notice to the Respondents;

¶25

(ii) The Court Receiver shall within a period of two weeks after taking possession, give an option to the Respondent in writing to act as agents of the Receiver in respect of the said commercial vehicle described in Exhibit-D to the Petition. The respondents shall be given two weeks time by the Court Receiver from the date of receipt of the Court Receiver's communication/letter to exercise such option. In the event of the respondent/s being desirous of acting as agents of the Receiver, they shall be appointed as agents of the Receiver,

¶26

KPPNair 4

¶27

subject to security and royalty. The Receiver shall determine the quantum of security and royalty having regard to the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement For Commercial Vehicle Loan. (Exhibit A to the Petition);

¶28

(iii) In the event that the Respondents fails to communicate their willingness to the Receiver to act as agent of the Court Receiver within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the communication from the Court Receiver, it would be open to the Petitioner to apply to the Court for further orders including sale of the said commercial vehicle more particularly described in Exhibit-D to the Petition by private treaty;

¶29

(iv) There shall be an interim injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating, encumbering, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in respect of the said commercial vehicle namely Model No. EX 200LC having Chassis No. 200113726 more particularly described in Exhibit D to the Petition.

¶30

The Arbitration Petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶31

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. v. Anand Earthmovers and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. v. Anand Earthmovers 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

Karvy Financial Services Limited Vs Rajesh Vasantrao Chatorkar and Kiran R Chatorkar

Karvy Financial Services Limited Vs Mrs. Kavishri Veerapalli and 13 Ors.

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, Vs M/S.Damodaran Engineering Constuction Private Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs Chandra Lal Masakole and Rangilal Marsakole

L and T Finance Limted Vs Mr. Sagar Nanaso Phadke and Another

Kieon Developers Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mumbais Helter Housing Development Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.