[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Tata Capital Limited vs Global Autowheels Private Limited And ... on 25 February, 2026
OCD-10
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/1016/2025
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED
VS
GLOBAL AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date : 25th February, 2026.
Appearance
Mr. Avishek Guha, Adv.
Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Ankush Majumder, Adv.
...for the petitioner
The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measure of
protection, inter alia by way of a direction restraining the respondents from
dealing with, disposing of, alienating, transferring, encumbering or creating
any third party right, title or interest in respect of schedule 'B' property
described in the present petition.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
respondent no. 1 was granted a loan facility in the nature of Channel
Finance to the tune of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- under a Channel Finance
agreement dated 04.12.2018. The said facility was subsequently
renewed/revived/extended for a sum of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- in the years 2019
and 2020. Thereafter, in July 2021, the respondent no.1 once again
approach the petitioner for renewal of the said facility to which the petitioner
acceded. However, vide Capping letter dated 14.09.2021, the respondents
requested to reduce the sanctioned limit by Rs. 1,25,00,000/- and Cap the
facility amount at Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Upon reviewing the requirement of the
respondents, the petitioner reduced the previous sanctioned loan amount
from Rs. 4,25,00,000/- to 3,00,00,000/- for a tenure of a year and issued a
sanction letter dated 20.07.2021 to the respondents. The said facility was
further extended vide letter dated 21.07.2022 and 23.11.2023. Thereafter,
the petitioner and the respondents entered into a loan cum guarantee
agreement for Channel Finance read with the Registered Master Terms and
Conditions for Channel Finance dated 31.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.
3,00,00,000/-.
Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent no. 1 after
having availed of and utilized the entire loan facility, has defaulted in
repayment of the outstanding amount giving rise to the dispute between the
parties. Thereafter, the petitioner has recalled the entire loan vide notice for
Recall of Loan and Invocation of Arbitration dated 07.05.2025 and called
upon the respondents to make payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.
2,59,89,852.89/-. Despite receipt of such demand, the respondents failed
and neglected to liquidate the outstanding dues. Despite receiving the said
notice, the respondents failed to make the outstanding dues.
Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent no.1 vide Deed
of Hypothecation dated 04.12.2018 created a first and exclusive charge qua
the property as mentioned in schedule 'A'. However, learned Counsel for the
petitioner states that the said properties are under litigation and hence the
said charge could not be effectively enforced. He further points out that this
Court has requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present
petition in terms of the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
respondents are in possession of several unencumbered immovable
properties, particulars whereof are set of in schedule 'B' of the present
petition.
In the aforesaid circumstances, in order to secure the petitioner's
claim, the petitioner prays for interim protection restraining the respondents
from dealing with, disposing of, alienating or transferring, encumbering or
creating any third party right, title or interest in respect of the schedule 'B'
property as mentioned in the petition.
This Court has considered the materials placed on record and the
averments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is prima
facie evident that the petitioner had advanced substantial financial facilities
to respondent no.1 under agreement containing an Arbitration Clause and
that the defaults have occurred in repayment of the outstanding amount of
Rs. 2,59,89,852.89/-. The petitioner has already invoked the Arbitration
Clause contained in the agreement between the parties.
A prima facie case for grant of interim protection is, therefore, made
out. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner as the
schedule 'B' property admittedly belongs to the respondents and are stated
to be unencumbered, constituting identifiable assets available to secure the
petitioner's claim. Any alienation thereof during the pendency of the arbitral
proceedings would render the petitioner's claim incapable of effective
enforcement.
This Court is also satisfied that refusal of interim protection would
cause irreparable injury to the petitioner which cannot not be adequately
compensated in monetary terms.
Accordingly, interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is warranted. In view thereof, at this stage, there
shall be an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents,
assigns or any persons claiming through or under them from selling,
transferring, alienating, encumbering or creating any third party right, title
or interest in respect of schedule 'B' property until further order, or till the
conclusion of the arbitral proceedings whichever is earlier.
The respondents are at liberty to file their affidavit in opposition
within a period of four weeks; reply to the same, if any, be filed within a
period of two weeks thereafter.
The petitioner shall take all necessary steps for constitution of the
arbitral tribunal as expeditiously as possible.
List this matter after eight weeks.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
S. Mandi
