[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
M/S Ugro Capital Limited vs Bharat Electrical Accessories (P) Ltd. ... on 19 December, 2025
ORDER OCD-3
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/891/2025
M/S UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED
VS
BHARAT ELECTRICAL ACCESSORIES (P) LTD. AND ORS
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date: December 19, 2025.
Appearance:-
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. K. K. Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Sonia Nandy, Adv.
Ms. Mallika Bothra, Adv.
...for petitioner.
Mr. Ishaan Saha, Adv.
Ms. Bhawna Tekriwal, Adv.
...for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Tanay Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Akansha Singhania, Adv.
...for respondent nos. 4 to 6.
The Court:- The petitioner has preferred the present application under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a direction
upon the respondents to furnish an adequate security for a sum of Rs.
2,93,07,298/- towards alleged outstanding dues payable to the petitioner. In
the alternative, it is prayed that, in the event of the respondent's failure to
furnish such security, this Court be pleased to restrain the respondents from
operating their Bank accounts specified in Annexure-H, so as to secure an
amount of Rs.2,93,07,298/-.
It is the case of the petitioner that a loan facility of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was
extended to the respondents pursuant to a facility agreement and sanction
letter dated 25.07.2023, in relation to the loan account
No.UGDADEL000000481.The respondents executed a demand promissory note
and a letter of continuity under which they undertook an unconditional
obligation to repay the sanctioned facility.
The respondent no.1 was engaged in retail trade with various suppliers,
including Vedanta Limited & Gupta Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. As per the
sanction letter and facility agreement, the credit facility was structured against
invoices raised by the suppliers. Each disbursement made by the petitioner
was treated his payment towards supply of goods/services rendered by the
suppliers. Each tranche of the facility was released against a corresponding
invoice. The facility was sanctioned as a short term working capital loan for a
tenure of one year, with each disbursement tranche having a repayment cycle
of 90 days. The respondents were obliged to repay each tranche on the 91 st
day, and any failure to do so constituted an event of default, thereby entitling
the petitioner to recall the loan and demand immediate payment of the
principal along with the accrued interest.
In accordance with the above terms, invoices were raised by the
respondent no.1 and the petitioner disbursed the corresponding loan amounts.
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have defaulted in the
repayment of the five invoices as mentioned in the statement of accounts.
"Statement of Account As On 10-11-2025
Borrower Name Loan Account Number Invoice No Due Principal Due Late Payment Total Amount DPD
Date Due Due
M/S. BHARAT UGDADEL000000481 GPTPL/23 21-Jun- 24,98,000.00 11,72,759.67 36,70,759.67 507
ELECTRICAL -24/0314 2024
ACCESSORIES
(P) LTD.
M/S. BHARAT UGDADEL000000481 GPTPL/23 24-Jun- 24,50,000.00 11,50,224.66 36,00,224.66 504
ELECTRICAL -24/0315 2024
ACCESSORIES
(P) LTD.
M/S. BHARAT UGDADEL000000481 GPTPL/23 25-Jun- 24,98,000.00 11,72,759.67 36,70,759.67 503
ELECTRICAL -24/0316 2024
ACCESSORIES
(P) LTD.
M/S. BHARAT UGDADEL000000481 GPTPL/23 26-Jun- 24,98,000.00 11,72,759.67 36,70,759.67 502
ELECTRICAL -24/0317 2024
ACCESSORIES
(P) LTD.
M/S. BHARAT UGDADEL000000481 BEAPL/ 09-Jul- 1,00,00,000.00 46,94,794.52 1,46,94,794.52 489
ELECTRICAL 010/23-24 2024
ACCESSORIES
(P) LTD.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the facility
agreement, the payment was supposed to be made to the borrower. The
petitioner submits that he had earlier filed an application being AP-
COM/39/2023 before this Court under Section 9 seeking security to the tune
of Rs.2,08,19,870/-. During the pendency of the petition, it is being noted in
the order of 12th November, 2024 in AP-COM/39/2023 that the said amount
was paid by the respondents and thus interim relief was not granted. However,
it is recorded that pursuant to the alleged reconstructing, fresh invoices were
raised and against this invoices the petitioner had disbursed an amount of
Rs.1,99,44,000/- on various dates. According to the petitioner duly disbursed
tranches remaining unpaid and thus there is a total outstanding of
Rs.2,08,19,871/- as on date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the facility agreement still
subsists and that the disbursements were advanced in pursuance of the
reconstructing of the original contractual agreement. It is further submitted
that the respondent nos.4 to 6 had instituted CS-COM/55/2025 alleging, inter
alia, that the petitioner had fraudulently procured the respondents' digital
signature at the loan documents. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 state that the
signatures relied upon were not theirs. The said suit was disposed of vide
order dated 11th September, 2025. SLP No.35407 of 2025 has been preferred
against CS-COM/55/2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
12.12.2025 had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the petition and
states that the facility agreement entered between the parties does not cover
the present tranche of disbursement. He relies upon clause 3.2 and states that
in accordance with Schedule-II, the principal was supposed to make a payment
and in terms of the loan agreement the principals are Vedanta Limited and
Gupta Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. He states that the present dispute is not
covered by the loan facility agreement relied upon by the petitioner.
The said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is
controverted by the petitioner who states that the entire transaction arose out
of the said loan agreement and that there is no separate loan agreement
between the parties.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3 seeks time to file affidavit
in opposition. Learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6 also makes the
similar prayer. Respondents are granted two weeks time to file their respective
affidavit in opposition. Reply to the same, if any, be filed within one week.
Let this matter be listed on 19th January, 2026.
Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 as well as respondent nos.4 to
6 undertake to file their Vakalatnama during the course of the day.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
R. D. Barua
