Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Tricon Energy Uk Limited Through Its ... vs M/S Kriti Industries (India) Limited on 6 August, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1 AC No.60-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
AC No. 60 of 2024
(M/S TRICON ENERGY UK LIMITED THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SANTOSH KOLI Vs M/S KRITI
INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED )
Dated : 06-08-2024
Shri Ashwin Shanker - Advocate for applicant through V.C.
Shri Manoj Munshi - Advocate for non-applicant.
1] Heard on I.A. No.7399 of 2024, which is an application for
modification in the interim order dated 15.07.2024, filed by non-
applicant M/s. Kriti Industries (India) Limited.
2] In the aforesaid application, following relief has been
sought:-
"In view of the above, the respondent most humbly prays to this
Hon'ble Court to modify the aforesaid order and allow the respondent to continue with its business operations with the direction that the respondent shall maintain the properties over Rs.2.00 crores to secure the applicant till next date of hearing or any other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
3] Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant, at the outset, has submitted that he is seeking the limited modification of the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2024, to the extent that the interim direction in respect of transfer of movable properties in any manner may be recalled. Counsel has submitted that as per the audited balance sheet of the company, the current assets of the non-applicant/company are worth Rs.277 crores as on 31.03.2024, and the company has also Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 07-08-2024 15:09:14 2 AC No.60-2024 provided direct and indirect employment to 650 persons, whereas the award is of USD 1,53,972.58 only, equivalent to Rs.1,30,87,670/- on the basis of exchange rate of Rs.85/- per dollar. It is also submitted that on account of the aforesaid interim order, grave difficulty is being faced by the non- applicant/company as it is not possible to move its goods, and also able to make any bank transactions. Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed as the non-applicant is ready to maintain the properties worth Rs.2 crores to secure the applicant's claim.
4] The prayer is opposed by Shri Ashwin Shanker, learned counsel for the applicant appearing through video conferencing, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the non-applicant chose not to appear, despite service of notice, and apart from that, the award being a money decree is liable to be satisfied in full and thus, the non-applicant be directed to deposit the entire amount, including the principal and the interest as awarded by the Arbitrator, which is worth more than Rs.3 crores. 5] In support of his submissions, Shri Shanker has also relied upon certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as well as by the Bombay High Court in the cases of Kanpur Jal Sansthan and another Vs. Bapu Constructions reported as (2015) 5 SCC 267; Manish Vs. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation reported as 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3863; Pam Development Private Limited Vs. State of West Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 07-08-2024 15:09:14 3 AC No.60-2024 Bengal reported as (2019) 8 SCC 112; Toyo Engineering Corporation and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3455; State of Maharashtra through the Executive Engineer Vs. Patel Engineering Limited and others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 12596; and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 758 to submit that no interference is called for, and the decree being a money decree needs to be satisfied in full.
6] In rebuttal, Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that the non-applicant has already filed its objection regarding the maintainability of the application itself, as the same is not only barred by limitation, but adequate stamp duty has also not been paid on the award, and the agreement between the parties has already been held to be void by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction and the appeal in respect of which is already pending before this Court at the instance of the applicant.
7] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, as also the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that looking to the various legal issues involved, which are rather peculiar, and the fact that the non- applicant has already filed its objection to the main application, the order passed by this Court on 15.07.2024 may be modified to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 07-08-2024 15:09:14 4 AC No.60-2024 the extent that subject to deposit of the principal amount of USD 153,972.58 on the basis of the exchange rate as exists today, within a period of one week with the Principal Registrar of this Court, and further securing immovable properties worth Rs.3 crores by filing an affidavit within a week's time, the direction in para 8 of the order dated 15.07.2024, that "till the next date of hearing non-applicant are restrained from transferring their immovable or movable properties in any manner" is hereby modified and dispensed with, accordingly. The amount so deposited by the non-applicant may be allowed to be withdrawn by the applicant upon their furnishing the solvent security to the satisfaction to the Principal Registrar of this Court. 8] With the aforesaid, I.A. No.7399 of 2024 stands disposed of.
9] List the matter on 28.08.2024.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 07-08-2024
15:09:14