Allowed

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. Arpita Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Oct 2017CARBP/258/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted an ad-interim order restraining respondents from alienating mortgaged property pending arbitration. The Court fixed three months to commence arbitration proceedings under threat of vacating the order.

What did the court decide?

Restraint on respondents from alienating or creating interest in the mortgaged property; order to commence arbitration within three months.

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Arpita… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2017)

913.CARBP.258.17.doc

1/3

Prs

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

¶5

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.258 OF 2017

¶6

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ....Petitioner Vs. Arpita Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and ors. ….Respondents

¶7

Mr. Nilesh Gala i/by M/s Law Square for the Petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Mishra for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 13^th OCTOBER, 2017

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

On 11^th October, 2017 counsel appearing for Respondents after taking instructions had made a statement that only Rs.5,00,000/- and odd was outstanding and not Rs.1,43,00,000/- as stated by counsel for the Petitioner. The statement was accordingly recorded in the order that was passed.

¶11

Yesterday morning at 11.00 a.m., Respondents’ counsel

¶12

mentioned the matter and informed the court that the statement that he made that only Rs.5,00,000/- and odd was outstanding against repayment of the entire loan amount is not correct. Counsel stated

913.CARBP.258.17.doc

2/3

Prs

that Rs.5,00,000/- and odd is only the defaulted EMI. Since on 11^th October, 2017 the matter was stood over to today for considering the ad–interim application of the Petitioner, Shri Gala appearing for Petitioner presses for ad-interim in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) of Petition.

¶17

Admittedly Petitioner has the title documents in its possession. Therefore, the question of Respondents disposing the property or transferring the property to any third party does not arise. At the same time, Respondents have defaulted on EMIs and still owe a large sum to Petitioner. Balance of convenience is also in favour of Petitioner. Petitioner suffering prejudice is more if some relief is not granted. Therefore, the Respondents should be restrained and are hereby restrained from alienating or parting with possession or inducting anyone else or creating any interest or tenancy or license, in favour of anyone in respect of the mortgaged property.

¶18

4. Petition accordingly disposed.

¶19

The Petitioner to commence Arbitration Proceedings within

913.CARBP.258.17.doc

3/3

Prs

three months failing which the order passed today will stand vacated

¶24

without further reference to this court.

¶25

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. Arpita Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. Arpita Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and 2 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

Mumbai Shelter Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs Amod Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

D.N Nagar Shivneri Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Vs Sai Siddhant Developers

M/S a. S. Pictures Entertainment Vs M/S Shree Durga Trading Company and Anr.

Space Matrix Design Consultants Privte Limited Vs Trizetto India Private Limited

Racold Thermo Ltd. and Anr. Vs Central Electric Emporium

Alfa Laval (India) Limited Vs Modi Dairy,Thr. Its Partners Mr.Arun Modi and Anr.