Disposed

Cargosol Logstics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Devsar Overseas

Bombay HC4 Sept 2024ARBP/280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 9 petition under an undertaking agreement for recovery of Rs.46,82,650 lent to the respondents. The court found liability prima facie undisputed and granted an interim direction requiring respondents to disclose their movable and immovable assets and existing encumbrances on affidavit, with notice returnable in October 2024.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction to respondents to disclose on affidavit their movable/immovable assets and encumbrances; notice returnable 10th October 2024.

Cargosol Logstics Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Devsar Overseas — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 17-ARBP 280-24.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA MANOJ MANOJ PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2024.09.19 17:40:10 +0530

¶3

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

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.280 OF 2024

¶5

Cargosol Logistics Limited … Petitioner V/s. Devsar Overseas & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Aman Kacheria a/w Neel Kothari & Murtaza Bhora i/by Agarwal & Dhanuka Legal for the Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER 2024

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

The captioned Arbitration Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and arises out of Confirmation and Undertaking Agreement dated 16th January 2023 entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the partners of Respondent No.1.

¶10

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner points out

¶11

that the Petitioner had lent certain money to the Respondents. He places reliance upon an e-mail communication dated 3rd July 2023 addressed by the

Mugdha

1 of 3

2 17-ARBP 280-24.doc

Petitioner to Respondent No.3 calling upon Respondent No.3 to provide ledger confirmation for quarterly audit purpose of sum of Rs.46,82,650/-, which was due and payable by the Respondents to the Petitioner. He points out that this amount was duly confirmed by the Respondents by e-mail dated 7th July 2023. He also invites my attention to an e-mail dated 24th August 2023 addressed by the Respondents to the Petitioner from which he points out that the Respondents have not disputes that the amounts were outstanding, but had only sought further time to make payment. He submits that despite this assurance and undertaking, the amount due and payable under the Confirmation and Undertaking Agreement dated 16th January 2023 has not been paid.

¶16

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has placed reliance upon an Affidavit of Service dated 10th September 2024 from which he points out that though the Respondents have been served, none appeared on behalf of the Respondents. It is in these circumstances that today Learned Counsel presses for the reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) of the Petition.

¶17

I have heard Learned Counsel, perused the record and I am prima facie satisfied that the Respondents have not disputed the liability to repay the Petitioner sum of Rs.46,82,650/-. The Respondents have also not today appeared and opposed the present Petition. Hence, I find that the Petitioner is

Mugdha

2 of 3

3 17-ARBP 280-24.doc

entitled to limited interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads

¶22

thus:-

¶23

“b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings, the Respondents be directed to disclose on affidavit, the details of all their properties/assets, both movable and immovable (including all bank accounts) and disclose details regarding existing security interest/charge/encumbrance created by the Respondents over the said disclosed properties/ assets;

¶24

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 10th October 2024.

¶25

Stand over to 10th October 2024 for further hearing.

¶26

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶27

Mugdha

¶28

3 of 3

Cargosol Logstics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Devsar Overseas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cargosol Logstics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Devsar Overseas

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manmohan Kapani vs Kapani Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

D S Realtors vs Pant Nagar Parivartan Chs Ltd.

Manmohan Kapani vs Kapani Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs Gtl Infrastructure Limited

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India vs Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd.

Kamlesh K Singh vs Rite Nutan Homes Private Ltd.