Disposed

M/S Mvr Gas v. M/S Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2021COMAP/46/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Commercial Courts Act appeal arising from an ex parte interim order in an arbitration-related petition. The Court held no interference was needed at this stage, allowing the appellant to file objections in the commercial court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of without interfering in the ex parte order; parties to file objections in Commercial Court.

M/S Mvr Gas Vs M/S Aditya Birla Finance Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

COMAP NO.46 OF 2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. MVR GAS

¶11

SY. NO.400

¶12

SARJAJPURA-ATTIBELE MAIN ROAD SARJAPURA HOBLI

¶13

BANGALORE - 560 125

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

¶15

SHRI B.V.SADANAND

¶16

SHRI B.V.SADANAND

¶17

S/O SHRI VENKATA SWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.801, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK

¶18

KORAMANGALA

¶19

BANGALORE - 560 004

¶20

SMT. S.L.MANJULA

¶21

W/O SHRI B.V.SADANAND AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶22

NO.801, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK

¶23

KORAMANGALA

¶24

BANGALORE - 560 004

¶25

... APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SHRI G.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED ONE INDIA BULLS CENTRE TOWER I, 18^TH FLOOR JUPITOR MILL COMPOUND #841, SENAPATHI BAPATH MARG ELPHINSTAN ROAD

¶29

¶30

MUMBAI - 400 013 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI AKASH N A

¶31

... RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SHRI B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE )

¶33

¶34

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT (CCH 84) OF I.A. NO.1 IN COM.AA NO.7/2021 DATED 29.01.2021 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL.

¶35

THIS COMAP COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

appellants.

¶39

The appellants are the respondents in a petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the said Act of 1996"). In the petition filed under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996, the respondent has contended that the appellants have not repaid the loan granted to them to the extent of Rs.99,75,465/- as on 14^th July 2020. It is stated in the petition that the arbitration clause has been already invoked by the respondent.

¶40

¶41

In the said petition under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996, I.A No.1 for interim relief was filed by the respondent seeking interim custody of the schedule plant and machineries in possession of the appellants. The impugned order is an exparte ad interim order directing the appellants to furnish a security for payment of Rs.99,75,465/- within a period of fifteen days, failing which the respondent shall be permitted to take interim custody of the machineries mentioned in the petition schedule from the appellants, if necessary, with the help of jurisdictional police and to keep the same in its safe custody till the next date.

¶42

An order was passed by this Court on 8^th March 2021 staying the order passed by the Commercial Court permitting the respondent to take interim custody subject to various conditions including a condition of depositing Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 22^nd March 2021. The amount was not deposited. Therefore, the order of stay dated 8^th March 2021 stands vacated.

¶43

The impugned order is an exparte ad -interim order passed pending the final disposal of I.A No.1 filed in the petition under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996. Hence, the appellants can file a statement of objections to I.A No.1 and

¶44

¶45

apply for vacating the exparte order. If the appellants succeed and I.A No.1 is rejected by the Commercial Court, the action of restitution may follow.

¶46

Therefore, it is not necessary, at this stage, to interfere with the exparte ad -interim order passed by the Commercial Court.

¶47

The appeal is disposed of subject to the observations made above.

¶48

All the contentions of the parties on merits of the pending proceedings are kept open.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

AHB

M/S Mvr Gas v. M/S Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mvr Gas v. M/S Aditya Birla Finance Limited

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

S G Anantharam Vs Smt. Lalitha Amrutesh

Sri Lalji Ladharam Patel Vs State of Karnataka

Prof.B.Jayadevappa Vs Sri.S.S.Patil

Sri. Anil Annigeri Vs Sri. Manohar Bevinamar

Sri Dinesh Kalahalli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suraj Naik Vs the State of Karnataka