Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ars Graphics
2015 Latest Caselaw 3093 Del

17
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 3343/2014 & IAs No.21632 & 26566/2014
      KODAK INDIA PVT. LTD.                     ..... Plaintiff
                     Through: Ms. Aayushi Sharma and
                     Mr.Rohit Gupta, Advocate

                         versus

      ARS GRAPHICS                                  ..... Defendant
                         Through: Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate
                         Mr.Raghuvendra    Singh,     Advocate      for
                         Intervenor

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

% 17.04.2015

1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 7.4.2015, on

which date, counsel for the defendant had stated that the relief sought

by the plaintiff in respect of the subject machineries has already been

granted and as far as the relief of damages is concerned, the plaintiff

has not laid any foundation in the plaint for claiming the same.

2. In view of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the plaintiff was

directed to obtain instructions from her client as to whether it is

inclined to pursue the present suit any further.

3. Today, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that she has

obtained instructions from her client to the effect that it is not inclined

to pursue the present suit any further. She however draws the

attention of the court to the order dated 4.2.2015 passed in IA

No.2269/2015 and seeks a clarification.

4. The aforesaid application was filed by the intervenor, Siemens

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., praying inter alia for restraint orders

against the plaintiff, pending adjudication of its application for

impleadment. The intervenor had stated that the defendant had

executed a Loan Agreement dated 29.5.2014 with it for purchasing the

subject machineries from the plaintiff and the said machineries were

duly hypothecated in favour of the applicant. Subsequently, the said

machineries had been handed over to the plaintiff through a Local

Commissioner in terms of the order dated 22.12.2014 and the

intervenor's counsel had submitted that his client has an interest in

the aforesaid machineries and is concerned about their condition. He

had requested that the said machineries should be properly preserved

by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

5. In response, counsel for the plaintiff had assured the court that

the said machineries are in the possession of her client and are being

preserved in good condition.

6. While disposing of IA No.2269/2015, directions were issued to

the plaintiff to ensure that the machineries lying in its custody are not

sold/transferred or alienated without seeking prior approval of the

court.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that now that the suit is

being disposed of on her statement, the plaintiff be given liberty to sell

the aforesaid machineries and recover the monies payable by the

defendant to her client for being adjusted towards the purchase value.

8. Learned counsel for the intervenor states that this would

adversely affect the interest of his client inasmuch as the machineries

in question stand hypothecated by the defendant in favour of his

client.

9. On a query posed to learned counsel for the intervenor as to

whether his client has initiated any legal proceedings against the

defendant for having committed a default in making the payment

towards the loan availed of for purchasing the machineries, learned

counsel states that as on date, criminal proceedings initiated by his

client against the defendant are pending, but they have yet to take

steps to file civil proceedings for recovery of money against the

defendant. He states that if granted a period of five weeks, his client

shall take necessary steps for instituting civil proceedings against the

defendant and for seeking interim orders in respect of the machineries

in the said proceedings.

10. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is deemed appropriate to

dispose of the present suit with directions to the plaintiff retain the

custody of the subject machineries and preserve the same for a period

of five weeks from today. If in that duration, orders are passed by a

competent court in favour of the intervenor in respect of the

machineries in question, then the plaintiff shall abide by the said

orders and it shall be entitled to participate in the said proceedings to

seek appropriate orders. However, after the expiry of five weeks, the

plaintiff shall be at liberty to deal with the machineries, as it may

deem appropriate.

11. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending applications. No

order as to costs.

HIMA KOHLI, J APRIL 17, 2015 mk