UGRO Capital Ltd. vs Bell Finvest (India) Ltd. And Ors.

The claim of the petitioner arises out of an award dated 15th March, 2021 followed by a corrigendum dated 3rd May, 2021. The awarded amount is

approximately Rs.4.5 crores. The apprehension of the award-debtor as articulated by learned Counsel is that despite an application filed for setting

aside of the award there is no application for stay of the award under Section 36 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which has been filed by

the award debtor. Counsel places two orders one of the Jaipur DRT of 2nd December, 2019 followed by a Madras High Court of 21st January, 2020

wherein the award-debtor was a respondent contesting the proceedings. By the first order, the award debtors were restrained from transferring or

encumbering their properties and also from leaving the country without prior permission of the Tribunal, being the Jaipur DRT. By this order, the

award debtors were also directed to furnish security in the form of fixed deposit etc. An order passed by the Madras High Court, has been relied upon

to show that Receiver was appointed to administer the financial affairs of the first award-debtor in the present proceedings and to receive the amounts

due and payable under the book debts which has been specifically charged in favour of the petitioner before the Madras High Court. Counsel places a

letter from the lawyer of the award debtor of 15th March, 2021 which records a request for waiving the fees of the Arbitrator on the ground of the

order passed by the Jaipur DRT. Counsel prays for appropriate orders in the light of the aforesaid documents.

Learned counsel appearing for the award debtors places an order of the Jaipur DRT of 2nd December, 2019 which gives particulars of the assets and

properties which the award debtors were restrained from transferring and alienating. Counsel submits that all the properties of the award debtors have

been covered by the restraint in the Jaipur DRT order and further submits that appropriate directions may be given on the Receiver appointed by the

Madras High Court for doing the needful.

Upon hearing learned Counsel, this Court finds that there is a serious risk of the award-holder/petitioner being deprived of the fruits of the award

unless suitable orders are passed against the award debtors. The conduct of the award-debtors in relying upon orders passed by the Jaipur DRT in

refusing to pay even the fees of the learned Arbitrator does not inspire any confidence in this Court to step back from protecting the award-holder as

provided under Section 9 of the Act even post award. Section 9(1)(b) entitles a party from securing the amount in the arbitration as also an interim

injunction or appointment of Receiver: 9(1)(d). The facts in the present case leave no doubt that the award-holder is entitled to protective orders.

There shall accordingly be an order in terms of prayer (f) of the present application. Mr. Varun Kothari of the Bar Library Club is appointed Receiver

to take possession of the assets which have been mentioned in the letter of the lawyer of the award-debtors dated 5th February, 2021. The

remuneration of the Receiver shall be Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner/award-holder shall arrange for all travel and accommodation of the Receiver

since it has been submitted that the assets are situated in Mumbai. The Receiver will also be at liberty to appoint an agent to carry out the directions of

this Court. The expenses shall be borne by the petitioner. The Receiver is directed to file a report within a period of three weeks from date. There

shall also be an order restraining the respondents from dealing with or disposing of any of the assets and properties as mentioned in the letter dated 5th

February, 2021 till further orders.

List this matter after three weeks. The interim order shall remain for a period of five weeks.