Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Maa Chinnamastika Projects Pvt. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 637 Cal/2

ODC-2
                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE
                              (Via Video Conference)

                                   AP/66/2022

                      SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
                                   VS
               MAA CHINNAMASTIKA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 23rd February, 2022.

                                                                           Appearance:-
                                                           Mr. Soubhik Chowdhury, Adv.
                                                                 Mr. Debottam Das, Adv.
                                                               Ms. Ayusmita Sinha, Adv.


      The Court:- Affidavit of Service filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept with

the records.

      None appears on behalf of the respondent nor is any accommodation

prayed for on their behalf.

This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996. The disputes by and between the parties arise out of a Loan-cum-

Hypothecation agreement dated 15th June, 2019. It is submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that pursuant to the negotiations between the parties the petitioner

had advanced a sum in excess of Rs.2 crores to the respondents. The agreement

further provided that the respondents were to pay the said amount alongwith

interest in 51 equal monthly instalments. The loan was granted in order to

enable the respondents to purchase one Crushing and Screening Plant 200 TPH

particulars whereof appear at paragraph 4 of the petition.

Pursuant to the aforesaid, the respondents made payment of certain

instalments and thereafter, the respondents have failed to make timely payments

in terms of the aforesaid Agreement. There is now a sum in excess of Rs.3 crores

due and payable by the respondents to the petitioner particulars whereof appear

at paragraph 11 of the petition. Notwithstanding repeated requests the

respondents have refused to make any further payment to the petitioner.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interim

protection at this stage. The petitioner appears to have a strong prima facie case

on merits. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury also warrants

orders being passed in favour of the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (b) of the

Notice of Motion.

The petitioner is directed to effect service on the respondents.

Let this matter appear on 3 March, 2022.

It is made clear that in default of appearance of the judgment-debtors,

further orders would be passed on the returnable date.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)

S.Bag