Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 267 (BOM)

Jai Hind Projects Ltd. v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

2016-02-09

ANOOP V.MOHTA, G.S.KULKARNI

body2016
JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against order dated 19th November, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge on the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taken out by the Petitioner-Respondent herein. The learned Judge considering the contract between the parties and admitted default in making payment of Rs.1,79,47,125.49, and as the averments are made to protect the property including to secure repayment of the loan, has passed the order, pending final disposal of the arbitration proceedings and execution of Award. The learned Judge, therefore, has appointed Receiver in respect of hypotheticated asset described in paragraph 2 of the petition with a direction to take forcible physical possession of the said asset, if necessary, with the police assistance. Even permitted the Petitioner to take steps without giving any prior notice to the Respondents/Appellants. A provision is also made whereby the Receiver should give option to the Appellants to act as an agent of the said asset, subject to deposit of security and payment of royalty and all necessary action based upon the same. A provision is also made in the order that if the Appellants declined to act as an agent within a period of two weeks from the date of communication, the Respondents-original Petitioner to apply to Court for further orders including sale of said asset by private treaty. A restraint order is also passed against the Appellants from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in respect of the asset concerned. 2. This order of 19th November, 2014 though challenged by this Appeal filed on 18th February,2015, no steps have been taken by the Appellants and it appears that neither they applied to the Court for appropriate protective order or injunction. As the arbitration proceeding is pending, and considering the reasons so given, we see no reason to interfere with the said order. 3. The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.