Disposed

Profectus Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised Representative Mr Ganesh B Aparaj v. Poonam Bhushan Garud

Bombay HC7 Apr 2025CARBP/738/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court Receiver's report in a Section 9 interim-measures matter: possession of premises and machineries had been handed to the petitioner in September 2024, but the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear or update the court on arbitration status. The court directed that keys of the sealed shop be released to the premises owner and disposed of the report.

What the court decided

AI extract

Profectus Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

11-CRR-462-2024-CARBP-738-2024.doc

¶2

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

¶3

COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 462 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 738 OF 2024

¶4

Profectus Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised Representative Mr. Ganesh B. Aparaj ...Petitioner(s) Versus Poonam Bhushan Garud and Anr. ...Respondent(s)

¶5

None for Petitioner.

¶6

Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and Advocate for Owner of the premises were represented but appearance has not been submitted.

¶7

Mr N C Pawar, Court Receiver, High Court Bombay, present.

¶8

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

¶9

Date : April 7, 2025

¶10

P. C.

¶11

It is seen from the record that way back on September 28, 2024, the representative of the Learned Court Receiver along with the representative of the Petitioner have taken possession of the premises specified and the machineries specified contained therein and handed them over to the Petitioner. Since, none appears for the Petitioner yet again, it would be appropriate to hand over the keys of the shop/gala which are under the lock

¶12

and seal of the Court Receiver, to the owner of the premises who is present in Page 1 of 2 April 7, 2025

¶13

Shraddha

¶14

11-CRR-462-2024-CARBP-738-2024.doc

¶15

Court today, namely, Shop No. 36/1/1, Shade No. 2, Opposite to Rohit Heights, Narhe, Pune-411041.

¶16

The jurisdiction under Section 9 is meant to be for temporary interim measures in aid of arbitration. It is expected that the Petitioner apprises the Court about the status of the arbitration and the execution of the arbitral award, if any. Since that has not been done, the aforesaid directions are being passed today. This is being done, as a last chance to enable the Petitioner, to update the Court about the arbitration proceedings, on April 21, 2025 under the caption, “ Directions ”.

¶17

The owner shall be entitled to approach the Learned Court Receiver to take the keys which are in the possession of the Court Receiver.

¶18

Court Receiver’s Report No. 462 of 2024 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is hereby disposed of.

¶19

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶20

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶21

Page 2 of 2 April 7, 2025

¶22

Shraddha

Profectus Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised Representative Mr Ganesh B Aparaj v. Poonam Bhushan Garud

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Profectus Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised Representative Mr Ganesh B Aparaj v. Poonam Bhushan Garud

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ratansingh and Bros vs Union of India through the General Manager and Anr.

Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Patel Engineering Ltd.

Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. vs Exquisite Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and 11 Ors.

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs M/S Shiv Shakti Enterprises

Bharati Defence and Infrastructure Ltd. vs The Shipping Corporation of India

Joseph Massey vs Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd.