Bombay High Court
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd vs G3 Motors Limited And 3 Ors on 16 January, 2020
Author: G. S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
910-CARBPL-1329-19.DOC
Ashwini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 1329 OF 2019
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd ...Petitioner
Versus
G3 Motors Ltd & Ors ...Respondents
Dr Birendra Saraf, with Apurva Thipsay & Rajat Mohindroo, i/b
Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr Gulnar Mistry, with Rishir Daulat, Teresa Daulat, Geetanjali
Joshi, Priyanka Gidh, Siddharth Nunes, i/b TRD Associates, for
the Respondents Nos. 2 and 4.
Mr Sharan Jagtiani, with Sumeet Nankani, Rishir Daulat, Teresa
Daulat i/b TRD Associates.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J.
DATED: 16th January 2020 PC:-
1. Dr Saraf for the Petitioner invites my attention to previous orders. Briefy stated, I made orders of disclosure against Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 are guarantors for the debt of the 1st Respondent.
2. Dr Saraf complains that the disclosures made are not only inadequate but have now turned up an entirely new case, one that Page 1 of 7 16th January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:39:52 ::: 910-CARBPL-1329-19.DOC was never pointed out the Court before. Specifcally, it is now said that the Rupees 1.5 crore worth of automobile spare parts said to be lying in a workshop at Nerul are allegedly hypothecated to Federal Bank Limited. There are no particulars of this hypothecation, in the sense that the spare parts at Nerul are not specifcally noted in the hypothecation document. I am informed that Federal Bank has initiated steps under The Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 ("SARFAESI Act"). Specifcally, it has issued a notice under Section 13. A response is being prepared.
3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 have disclosed personal assets. Those disclosures, the relevant pages of which are 210 and 214, show that the two guarantors between them hold quite substantial assets in the form of investments in shares and mutual funds.
4. This order will, therefore, be in two parts. The frst part will deal with the automobile spare parts. I propose to appoint a Receiver of all the spare parts and I am informed that these are now actually at more than one location. I will list all the locations below. The second part will deal with an injunctive order against Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 in respect of part of their investment holdings.
I. RE: SPARE PARTS:
5. The address of the Nerul workshop where automobile spare parts of the estimated value of Rs. 1.5 crores are said to be stored is G3 Motors Limited, Workshop at Plot No. D-175, TTC Industrial Page 2 of 7 16th January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:39:52 ::: 910-CARBPL-1329-19.DOC Estate, MIDC, Shiravane, Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 706. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, will depute a representative after notice to Advocates for both sides to visit the premises and to inventory and take actual and physical possession of all automobile spare parts in those premises. At present, the automobile spare parts are not to be removed from the warehouse and are not to be put to sale without further orders of the Court. I will consider a later order for valuation of the spare parts by one of the valuers on the panel of the Court Receiver.
6. Liberty to the Court Receiver to take the assistance of the local police if required. The authorities will act on production of an authenticated copy of this order.
7. Representatives of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent will be entitled to remain at site. All will cooperate with the Court Receiver and his representatives.
8. The Court Receiver's representatives are at liberty to take photographs and make a video recording. The itemization and inventory should be as precise as possible.
9. I am informed that there are three other licensed premises in different parts of the Mumbai Region. All of them are licensed premises. The names of the licensors and the addresses of the premises are provided to me today. They are as follows.
Page 3 of 716th January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:39:52 ::: 910-CARBPL-1329-19.DOC Sr. Name of Licensor Address of the Premises No.
1. Sunbeam Hightech Survey No. 36 Hissa No.1 (Part), Developers Pvt Ltd Corresponding CTS No. 301, Land admeasuring about 4217 Sq. Meters having structures and open land situated at Mith Chowki, Malad Orlem Church, Marve Road, Village- Valnai Taluka- Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District.
2. Mr Sambhaji Chavan Survey No. 39 (Part), Corresponding CTS No. 1 (Part), Land admeasuring about 1396.2 Sq. Meters having structures and open land situated at Mith Chowki, Malad Orlem Church, Marve Road, Village -
Valnai Taluka - Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District.
3. Mr Harishchandra Sr No. 842, Property No.1682B, Patil, Mrs Yashoda Post Wadkhal, Pen, Raigad Patil, Mr Santosh Patil & Mrs Soni Patil
10. I am told that these premises are closed because there are disputes with the licensors, presumably for non-payment of license fees. I am informed that in these premises there is also some stock of automobile spare parts. Rather than leave it to the 1st Respondent to yet again 'discover' something in these premises, I will now require the Court Receiver to frst write to each of the licensors enclosing a copy of the order and mentioning that the Court Receiver proposes to inspect each of these premises for the limited purpose of taking an inventory of automobile spare parts, if any Page 4 of 7 16th January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:39:52 ::: 910-CARBPL-1329-19.DOC within those premises. If any spare parts are found, the Court Receiver will take actual and physical possession, but leave them at site. It should be made clear to the licensors that their rights in respect of the premises themselves are unaffected and the Receiver is not being appointed of the licensed premises. Later I will, upon receiving a Report of the Court Receiver, consider whether to make an order for removal of any spare parts found in these premises.
B. RE: INVESTMENTS OF RESPONDENTS NOS. 2AND 4.
11. The 2nd Respondent, Rashi Jaidev Gupta, has at page 210 listed certain investments. I am for the present considering only the investments said to be in mutual funds. There are seven mutual funds listed. The 4th Respondent, Vandana Vikram Kapoor, has similarly listed her investments at pages 214 and 215. From page 214 and carried over to 215 are a list of investments in various shares. For the present, I am making no order in respect of those shares. There are however at page 215 a list of eight equity mutual funds and four debt mutual funds. The approximate value of the mutual funds of the 2nd Respondent is Rs.41,92,244/- and of the 4th Respondent is Rs.57,62,084/-as of 26th November 2019.
12. The following order will therefore cover the mutual funds of both Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 and will operate until further orders, that is to say: that until further orders of the Court Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 will not redeem, liquidate or exit any of the mutual funds listed at pages 210 and 215 without prior leave of the Court Page 5 of 7 16th January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:39:52 ::: 910-CARBPL-1329-19.DOC obtained after at least one week's prior written notice to the Advocates for the Petitioners. If any of these mutual funds are so structured as to return a periodic pay out whether as interest or as dividend, Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 are directed to maintain an account and every three months to remit to the Prothonotary and Senior Master all receipts that have been credited to their accounts as earnings on these mutual funds. When so remitted, those funds are to be invested by the Prothonotary & Senior Master in accordance with the usual practices of his ofce until further orders. It is clarifed that if any of the mutual funds are held on a dividend reinvestment option then that is not to be changed without leave of the Court.
13. A List of these mutual funds is appended below:
RASHI JAIDEV GUPTA Investment Details Value (In Rs.) Mutual Funds ICICI Prudential (Equity & Debt Fund) 292274.03 ICICI Prudential (Floating Interest Fund) 281638.54 ICICI Prudential (Long Term Equity Fund) 114226.69 Nippon India Low Duration Fund 2968690.75 Nippon India Multi Cap Fund 259601.48 Nippon India Tax Saver 117324.29 Nippon India Tax Saver 158488.92 VANDANA V KAPOOR Investment Details Value (In Rs.) Mutual Fund Equity ICICI Prudential Floating Rate Growth 72680.23 Page 6 of 7 16th January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:39:52 ::: 910-CARBPL-1329-19.DOC ICICI Prudential Focused Bluechip 1253853.86 ICICI Prudential Tax Plan Growth 95000.00 (31.03.2012) Reliance Tax Saver Fund Dividend Plan 80C 95000.00 (31.03.2011) Reliance Tax Saver Fund Dividend Plan 80C 100000.00 (31.03.2013) Reliance Tax Saver 80C (31.03.2014) 95000.00 Reliance Equity Opportunity Fund 74000.00 Reliance Tax Saver (Elss) Fund Growth 80C 150000.00 (31.03.2017) Mutual Fund Debt Reliance Monthly Income Growth Plan 200626.72 Reliance Monthly Dividend Plan 2074355.28 Reliance Money Manager Fund Growth 734419.42 Plan Growth Reliance Regular Saving Fund Equity Plan 817149.21
14. Mr Jagtiani agrees to take instructions within a few days as to how much a cash deposit, if any, his clients are able to make to secure the claim of the Petitioner. I am making it clear that if no deposit or other suitable arrangement for security is forthcoming then other measures will have to be considered.
15. List the matter on 24th January 2020.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 7 of 7 16th January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:39:52 :::