Sb Aero Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Hg Aviation Ltd.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2295 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

    CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.808 and 818 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

        As the issue involved in both the CRPs is interlinking based on

the same set of facts and arising out of the same suit, both the CRPs

are disposed of by this common order.


        2.      The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.204 of 2022 on the file

Court of VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar, against the respondents herein for recovery of an amount

of Rs.29,14,155/- from respondent No.1. Along with the suit, the

petitioner also filed I.A.No.130 of 2022 under Order XXXVIII Rule 6

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for attachment before Judgment

and another application in I.A.No.131 of 2022 under Order XXXIX

Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C to restraine respondent No.2 from

removing/taking over the petition schedule property from the

premises/hangar of respondent No.2. The schedule of property in

both the IAs., is aircraft of the make, Boeing 737-800 NG, MSN

29884 with Registration No.S2-AIV, parked at Rajiv Gandhi

International Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. The

learned trial Court having considered both the IAs, by order dated

06.04.2022, ordered urgent notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2, while MSK,J 2 CRP_808&818_2022

directing the matter to be listed on 12.04.2022. Aggrieved by the said

order, dated 06.04.2022 in I.A.Nos.130 of 2022 and 131 of 2022, the

petitioner herein filed CRP Nos.818 and 808 of 2022, respectively.

3. This Court having considered both the CRPs together by

a common order, dated 07.04.2022 passed the following order:

"1st respondent shall furnish security for the suit claim before the trial court within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be ad interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from removing/taking off the petition schedule property i.e., the aircraft of the make and manufacture Boeing 737 - 800 NG MSN 29884, with Registration No.S2-AIV.

On furnishing of such security, the ad interim injunction order stands vacated.

In case of default, the aircraft of the 1st respondent of the make and manufacture Boeing 737 - 800 NG MSN 29884, with Registration No.S2- AIV, which is stated to be landed in the 2nd respondent -Airport, stands attached, and it is for the 1st respondent to bear the landing and other charges, if any."

4. While matters were pending, I.A.No.5 of 2022 is filed by

AABS Aviation 1 (Ireland) Limited seeking to implead itself as

respondent No.3 in the main CRPs along with I.A.No.4 of 2022 MSK,J 3 CRP_808&818_2022

seeking to vacate the order, dated 07.04.2022. The said I.A.Nos.4 of

2022 and 5 of 2022 are moved in the 3rd Vacation Court by way of

Lunch Motion.

5. Heard Sri P.S.S.Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for

implead proposed respondent No.3.

6. Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the

proposed respondent No.3/implead petitioner submitted that the

aircraft in question, which is now attached by virtue of the order,

dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court is, in fact, belongs to the

proposed respondent No.3 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the CRPs,

who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.204 of 2022, are nothing

to do with the said aircraft. The petitioner herein by misrepresenting

the facts and without filing any document to show that respondent

No.1 herein is the owner of the subject aircraft, obtained the interim

order from this Court.

7. Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel also contended that

the relevant documents showing the ownership of the proposed

respondent No.3 herein are also placed. He further submitted that

because of the order, dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court, at the

instance of the petitioner, the proposed respondent No.3 is incurring

heavy losses and damages as the aircraft in question is restrained MSK,J 4 CRP_808&818_2022

from removing from respondent No.2 airport. Hence, submitted that

without prejudice to the rights of the proposed respondent No.3,

respondent No.3 is ready and willing to furnish bank guarantee for

the entire suit claim and to workout its remedies including lifting of

the attachment before the trial Court in O.S.No.204 of 2022, and to

establish its ownership over the subject Aircraft.

8. Sri P.S.S.Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner

acceded to the said course of action i.e., furnishing of bank

guarantee by the proposed respondent No.3 to the entire suit claim

subject to and without prejudice to the rights of proposed

respondent No.3 to be agitated in the pending suit.

9. In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to order

implead petition i.e., I.A.No.5 of 2022. Accordingly I.A.No.5 of

2022 is ordered.

10. Taking into consideration the rival submissions,

especially, the offer made by the counsel for the proposed

respondent No.3, both the C.R.Ps are disposed of with the following

directions:

(1) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to file appropriate application seeking to implead itself as party to O.S.No.204 of 2022 pending on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and furnish bank guarantee favoruing the learned trial Court securing the entire suit amount of Rs.59,14,155/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

                                                               MSK,J
                            5                      CRP_808&818_2022

(2) Order, dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court in C.R.P Nos.808 and 818 of 2022 shall continue till respondent No.3 furnishing bank guarantee for the suit claim as directed above.

(3) On furnishing of the bank guarantee by respondent No.3 as above and accepting the same by the learned trial Court, the order, dated 07.04.2022 passed by this Court shall come to an end.

(4) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to move appropriate application ascertain its right over the subject aircraft and the learned trial Court shall consider the said application, if any, filed by respondent No.3, on its own merits, without reference to the fact of furnishing of bank guarantee by respondent No.3 herein and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

(5) In case, if the trial Court comes to the conclusion that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have no right of ownership on the schedule aircraft and that respondent No.3 herein is alone having right over the said aircraft, the learned trial Court may pass appropriate orders on the continuous or otherwise of the bank guarantee furnished by respondent No.3.

11. Till the entire exercise is completed as above by

the learned trial Court, the bank guarantee furnished by the

respondent No.3 shall be kept alive, by Respondent No.3.

                                                                MSK,J
                                6                   CRP_808&818_2022

12. With the above directions, both the Civil Revision

Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________________________ MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J

Date: 19.05.2022 YVL MSK,J 7 CRP_808&818_2022

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.808 and 818 of 2022

Date:19.05.2022

YVL