High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 11 CAL CK 0024

Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Bharwad Mahesh Matambhai

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 20 November 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Petition No. 553 Of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

28 paragraphs · 557 words

The Court : This is an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by Act 3 of 2016.

From the affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that when the copies of the application were sought to be personally served

upon the respondent he refused to accept the same. Accordingly, this application is taken up for hearing in the absence of the respondent. Let the

affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record.

It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the agreement dated October 15, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the said agreementâ€) the

respondent obtained a loan of Rs.65,99,996/- for acquiring the asset mentioned in paragraph 3 to the application. The said asset remains hypothecated

in favour of the petitioner.

Under the said agreement, the respondent was obliged to repay the amount financed by the petitioner together with the agreed rate of interest and

other charges by way of 23 monthly instalments of Rs.1,17,725/- each, but after paying the second and portion of the third instalment, he failed to pay

the balance instalments. In spite of being called upon by the petitioner, the respondent failed to repay the dues of the petitioner or to make over

possession of the hypothecated asset to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner terminated the said agreement and filed this application to enforce its

rights against the hypothecated asset presently lying at Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat.

According to the petitioner, as on the date of filing of this application, there remains an amount of Rs.25,44,076/- due and owing by the respondents to

the petitioner.

Considering the materials on record, I find that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the

petitioner for obtaining an order for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the hypothecatedasset. Accordingly, Mr. Anjan Deb Sarkar,

Advocate, Room No.7 (Ground Floor), 10, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata is appointed as the Receiver to take the actual possession of the asset,

mentioned in paragraph 3 to the application. After taking possession of the hypothecated asset, the Receiver shall keep the same at a safe place to be

provided by the petitioner.

The Receiver shall be paid an initial remuneration of 2200 GMs by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also bear the travelling expenses of the Receiver,

including air fair and provide him with a befitting accommodation at the relevant places. Needless to mention that a competent officer of the petitioner

shall all along accompany the Receiver.

If necessary, the Receiver shall approach the Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat for obtaining police assistance to

implement this order. If the petitioner deposits the requisite fees with the concerned authorities, the Superintendent of Police shall render necessary

police assistance to the Receiver to take actual physical possession of the hypothecated asset from the concerned respondent.

Let, this application appear, under the same heading, after eight weeks. The Receiver shall file his report on the next date of hearing.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the petitioner upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

The Receiver and all concerned parties, including the Police Authorities shall act on certified website copies of this order.