L & T Finance Limited vs Shree Bricks Udyog And Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 304 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                      Date of decision: January 13, 2015
+                         OMP 46/2015
L & T FINANCE LIMITED                                      ..... Petitioner
               Through:                  Mr.Joginder Sukhija, Advocate
               versus

SHREE BRICKS UDYOG AND ANR.                              ..... Respondents
              Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

IA No. 364/2015

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

OMP 46/2015

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 the vehicle/asset/construction equipment of the

respondents, financed by the petitioner under a loan-cum-hypothecation

agreement dated 27.02.2013. 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. 56,48,575/- to the

respondents for purchase of construction equipment namely

HYDRAULIC EXAVATOR SK-210LC & ATLAS COPCO MB1500

ROCK BREAKER bearing (1) Engine No. JO5ETA31813 & Machine

No. YQ12B1233; (2) Sr.No. MHN 000121. The loan was to be paid

back in 35 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 1,87,200/-. 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

equipments. 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.32,62,262/- as on 18.12.2014.

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.

Narendra Singh, authorized representative of the petitioner, as a Receiver

to repossess the aforementioned vehicle/asset/construction equipment of

the make HYDRAULIC EXAVATOR SK-210LC & ATLAS COPCO

MB1500 ROCK BREAKER bearing (1) Engine No. JO5ETA31813 &

Machine No.YQ12B1233 and (2) Sr.No. MHN 000121.

3. In the event, the respondents make the payment of the entire

outstanding loan amount, the Receiver shall release the said equipments

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 equipments 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