Disposed

L and T Finance Limited v. Shraddha Tractors

Bombay HC23 Oct 2024IA/2672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution application to enforce an arbitral award directing payment with interest. Respondents were served but did not appear; service was refused. The Court granted disclosure reliefs, requiring the respondent proprietorship to file an affidavit of its properties and means within four weeks, and listed the matter further.

What did the court decide?

Disclosure of assets and means by affidavit under Order XXI Rule 41 and Section 51 CPC directed within four weeks; copy of order to be served; matter listed 15 January 2025.

L and T Finance Limited vs Shraddha Tractors — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

IA 2672-24 in EXAL 23783-24.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2672 OF 2024 IN

¶4

EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 23783 OF 2024

¶5

L & T Finance Ltd. ...Applicant V/s. Shraddha Tractors & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms. Nehal Deshmukh with Mr. Reet Jain i/b S. I. Joshi & Co., Advocate for the Applicant.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 23^rd OCTOBER, 2024 P.C. :

¶8

This Interim Application seeks execution of arbitral award dated 15^th September, 2023, pursuant to which the Respondents were jointly and severally directed to pay to the Applicant a sum of Rs. 5,14,955/comprising of amount of outstanding installments, overdue interest, costs of arbitration with further interest.

¶9

Ms. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appears for the Applicant and

¶10

Digitally signed byNIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2024.10.23 18:35:31 +0530

¶11

submits that the Respondent No.1 is a sole proprietory concern and Respondent No.2 is a sole proprietor of the Respondent No.1. That, despite an attempt to serve the Respondents, the Respondent No.2 has refused to accept the service. Ms. Deshmukh draws the attention of this

¶12

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶13

IA 2672-24 in EXAL 23783-24.doc

¶14

Court to affidavit of service dated 20^th August, 2024, which indicates

¶15

that the packet has been returned with a remark “refused” and therefore, this Court grant prayer of disclosure in terms of prayer Clauses (b) and (g), which read thus :

¶16

“(b) That the Defendants abovenamed be required by an order of this Hon’ble Court to file their Affidavit stating particulars of their properties etc., as provided under Order 21 Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 since the Decree/Award dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has remained unsatisfied for more than 30 days from the date of its passing;

¶17

(g) That the Defendants be directed to disclose their means on affidavit for satisfying the decree of the Plaintiffs under execution as per Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

¶18

None appears for the Respondents, though served.

¶19

Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that relief in terms of prayer Clauses (b) and (g) be granted.

¶20

Let affidavit of disclosure on oath in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (g) be filed by the Respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks.

¶21

Let a copy of this order be served upon the Respondents and an appropriate affidavit of service be filed by the next date.

¶22

List on 15^th January, 2025.

¶23

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶24

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

L and T Finance Limited v. Shraddha Tractors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L and T Finance Limited v. Shraddha Tractors

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

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Bhagwandas Ramchandra Bhattad

Shailendra Mohan Kamath and Anr. vs Yash Builders and Anr. and Gaurav v. Savla and 11 (Proposed Res)

Jetu Jacques Taru Lalwani vs Solestrap Industrial Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

The Marine Productss Export Development Authority vs Ramaswamy Mukund and 3 Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporaton Limited vs Laxmi Enterprises

Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Hamid Ahmed Kanche and 3 Ors.