Delhi High Court
L & T Finance Limited vs Om Constructions & Anr. on 13 January, 2015
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: January 13, 2015
+ OMP 47/2015
L & T FINANCE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Joginder Sukhija, Advocate
versus
OM CONSTRUCTIONS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)
IA No. 366/2015
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
OMP 47/2015
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act' in short) seeking
appointment of a representative of the petitioner company as a Receiver
to take possession of a vehicle/asset/construction equipment of the
respondents, financed by the petitioner under a loan-cum-hypothecation
agreement dated 15.08.2012. The averments in the petition are duly
supported by the affidavit and documents wherefrom, it is seen that the
petitioner company had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 41,38,000/- to the
respondents for purchase of construction equipment namely TATA
HITACHI MODEL EX 200 HYDERALIC EXCAVATOR. The loan
was to be paid back in 35 Equated Monthly Instalments of Rs.
1,44,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have
failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan facility. It is
further stated, in terms of clause 14 of the agreement, the petitioner has
the right to repossess the equipment. It is further averred that the
respondents have defaulted in payment of the loan amount and the total
amount due from the respondents jointly and severally was
Rs.21,94,794/- as on 21.11.2014. It is further averred that as per clause
17 of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, it was specifically agreed
between the parties that any dispute arising out of or in connection with
the said loan facility shall be referred to and resolved by the arbitration
and the petitioner constrained to terminate and recall the loan facility and
the dispute has been referred to the arbitration of the Sole Arbitrator Mr.
Bharat B. Jain, Advocate, High Court.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noticed
that in view of the respondents' default in payment of the loan amount,
the petitioner has issued notice to the respondent terminating the
agreement. In terms of clause 17 of the agreement, the petitioner has
appointed the Arbitrator. The equipment stands hypothecated with the
petitioner and under clause 14, the petitioner has rights to repossess the
said equipment. In these circumstances, this Court hereby appoints Mr.
Rajeev Singh, authorized representative of the petitioner, as a Receiver
to repossess the aforementioned vehicle/asset/construction equipment of
the make TATA HITACHI MODEL EX 200 HYDERALIC
EXCAVATOR bearing Serial No. 200150646.
3. In the event, the respondents make the payment of the entire
outstanding loan amount, the Receiver shall release the said equipment
to the respondents on superdari. The respondents are restrained from
parting with the possession of, or selling or creating any third party
interests in such equipment released to them on superdari.
4. The SHO/In-charge of the police station concerned is directed to
render necessary aid and assistance to the Receiver. After taking over
possession, the Receiver shall preserve and maintain the equipment till
further orders of this Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction
or of the Arbitrator.
5. This order shall remain in force till the respondents make the
payment of the loan amount or till it is modified by the learned
Arbitrator during arbitration proceedings or till the termination of the
arbitration proceedings.
6. The Arbitrator is free to decide the disputes referred for arbitration
uninfluenced by this order. The respondents are also at liberty to apply to
the Court for modification of this order.
7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8. Order be given dasti.
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
JANUARY 13, 2015
akb
