JUDGMENT : 1. The Court: In the present application the applicants are seeking an order recording and accepting the investments and assets mentioned in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition as adequate security in terms of prayer (d) of AP/371/2021. The applicants/respondents also seek an order of injunction to restrain the Receiver to not interfere with the day to day operation of the said assets at the work sites. 2. On July 3, 2019, several Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreements were entered between the parties for obtaining financial assistance to acquire various assets for the mining business. The respondents failed to make payment of the monthly instalments as per the repayment schedule. The petitioner claims the total outstanding dues amounting to INR 36,99,36,001. 3. An order dated November 10, 2021 was passed by the Court in this petition wherein the injunction restraining the respondents from disposing of the assets, as described in Annexure-‘B’ of the petition, was granted. Thereafter, when the respondents failed to pay the due amount or arrive at a settlement, the Court passed a further order dated November 18, 2021 appointing the Receiver to personally take possession of the said assets and take appropriate police help in compliance of the order passed by the Court. 4. The respondents preferred an appeal against the order dated November 18, 2021. In the appeal an order dated December 14, 2021 was passed wherein the Court stayed the hands of the Receiver regarding taking actual physical possession of the subject assets for a further period of 10 days. However, the Receiver was granted liberty to make an inventory of the subject assets. 5. It was further directed in absence of any order to the contrary, the Receiver shall proceed to take actual physical possession after 24th December, 2021 in terms of the impugned judgment and order. 6. On December 22, 2021 the respondents approached the Court by filing an interlocutory application being IA No.GA/1/2022. On December 23, 2021 the Court accepted the deposit amount INR 1 crore made by the respondents towards repayment of the total due amount and it also directed the Receiver to not proceed any further in terms of the order dated November 18, 2021. 7. Subsequently, the matter was taken up on several dates by Justice Kapur and the matter was adjourned to allow the parties to try and settle the disputes between them. 7. Subsequently, the matter was taken up on several dates by Justice Kapur and the matter was adjourned to allow the parties to try and settle the disputes between them. On March 31, 2022 this Court took up this matter and recorded the submissions made by both the parties. The said order is delineated below: “The Court : The matter is heard. Mr. S. N. Mitra, learned senior advocate has made submission before this Court and indicated that his client has made a cash deposit of Rs. 5 crore and a further deposit of Rs.1 crore as directed by this Court in favour of the Srei Equipment Finance Limited. He further submits that by a deed of mortgage, a property worth Rs.60 crore has been mortgaged in favour of the Srei Equipment Finance Limited. He, accordingly, submits that the claim of the petitioner which is to the tune of Rs.36 crore in the Section 9 application is covered by the above security and no further security is required to be given by the respondent. He has further submitted that GA/1/2021 has been filed in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench dated 14th December, 2021 wherein the Court had allowed his client to make an appropriate application offering the security for their dues towards the Srei company. He has also relied upon Section 13(2) notice under SARFAESI Act, 2002 wherefrom it is clear that the nine loan agreements (hereinafter referred to as ‘Facility Agreement’) were advanced by Srei to its client and Srei in this SARFAESI notice has claimed a sum of Rs.54,45,76,624/-which is payable as on 15th September, 2021. He further submits that the property indicated as the secured asset is the property which has been mortgaged with Srei. He submits that the value of the property being over Rs.62 crores as on the year 2015, the same would be sufficient security and no further security should be sought from the petitioner herein. The matter shall continue on 07th April, 2022 when Mr. Banerjee will make his submission.” 8. Subsequently, the matter was taken up on several dates and the matter has been heard. No settlement has been reached between the parties. 9. I have examined the petition filed by Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra’s client wherein an alternative property worth of Rs.60 crores approximately is sought to be provided as a security. Banerjee will make his submission.” 8. Subsequently, the matter was taken up on several dates and the matter has been heard. No settlement has been reached between the parties. 9. I have examined the petition filed by Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra’s client wherein an alternative property worth of Rs.60 crores approximately is sought to be provided as a security. However, it appears that this property has been mortgaged to the petitioner in lieu of other agreements entered into between the parties. There is no evidence provided in the petition indicating that those loans have been cleared and no dues certificate have been issued by Srei Equipment Finance Limited to the respondent company. In absence of such documents and vehement denial by the counsel appearing on behalf of Srei Equipment Finance Limited that the loans are not discharged, this property cannot be utilised as a security for the present assets in question. The very principle of hypothecation of assets is that in the event of non-payment of the instalments due, the financier is entitled to immediately take possession of the assets hypothecated. That is the law -the financee cannot choose at a later point of time when he is unable to pay the instalments to force the financier to take some other securities and stop the financier from taking possession of the assets. The very essence of a hypothecation agreement is based on the principle that the financier is the owner of the property and the same is given in possession to the financee and it is only upon completion of payment of the entire dues that the property becomes that of the financee. In the present case, the financee has not paid instalments from July, 2021, that is, for almost 12 months. It is to be noted that the instalments payable for each month is approximately Rs.1 crore and, therefore, Rs.12 crores have already become due as per the instalments. Furthermore, Srei Equipment Finance Limited has recalled the entire loans and therefore, the total dues would now be approximately to the tune of Rs.40 crores. 10. I make it clear that several opportunities were granted to Mr. Mitra’s client to make a lump sum payment of the dues that had fallen due. Mr. Mitra in spite of best efforts has not been able to convince his client to make payment of the dues. 10. I make it clear that several opportunities were granted to Mr. Mitra’s client to make a lump sum payment of the dues that had fallen due. Mr. Mitra in spite of best efforts has not been able to convince his client to make payment of the dues. Furthermore, as indicated by be above, the security being sought to be provided has not been shown to be unencumbered. 11. In light of the same, the said security cannot be used for discharge of any of the dues under the agreements. Furthermore, submission was made by Mr. Mitra today wherein he stated that the assets are not even being used by his client. 12. In light of this submission and the reasons provided above, I see no reason for staying the hands of the Receiver any further. Accordingly, the Receiver is directed to immediately take possession of the assets, make an inventory and file a report before this Court on the returnable date. 13. The Superintendent of Police of the jurisdiction wherein the assets are present is directed full assistance to the Receiver to ensure compliance of the order by this Court. 14. I am given to understand that the assets are located in two locations one in Odisha and the other in Rajasthan. As one Receiver has already been appointed by this Court, I am of the view that another Receiver may be appointed so that assets can be taken into possession immediately. Accordingly, Mr. Dipendra Nath Chandra, Advocate, (Mob. No.9831001979) is also appointed as a Receiver to carry out the orders passed by this Court. The initial remuneration shall be INR 34,000. 15. Matter is made returnable four weeks hence when the Receivers shall file their reports. 16. Accordingly, IA No.GA/1/2021 is disposed of. 17. Parties are directed to exchange their affidavits in the Section 9 application being AP/371/2021. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, within two weeks thereafter. Liberty is granted to the parties to mention for inclusion in the list. 18. On consent of parties, the Advocates-on-Record who are holding money as per the directions of this Court are directed to deposit the sum along with accrued interest before the Registrar, Original Side within two weeks from date. Liberty is granted to the parties to mention for inclusion in the list. 18. On consent of parties, the Advocates-on-Record who are holding money as per the directions of this Court are directed to deposit the sum along with accrued interest before the Registrar, Original Side within two weeks from date. On receipt of the said money, the Registrar, Original Side is directed to keep the said sum of money in an interest bearing fixed deposit.