Calcutta High Court
Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs Supreme Infrastructure Bot Private ... on 29 November, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-84
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
GA 2400 of 2016
With
CS 104 of 2015
GA 1504 of 2015
GA 2401 of 2016
GA 3651 of 2015
SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED
-Vs-
SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE BOT PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS
Appearance
Mr Utpal Bose, Sr Adv.
Mr Suman Bahrunani, Adv.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date: November 29, 2016.
The Court:- The suit filed by the finance company is against two sets of
borrowers from the same stable and the individual and corporate
guarantors who had either furnished guarantees or had put up their
properties as security for the credit facilities accorded by the plaintiff to
the first and second defendants.
The plaintiff claims to have lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 150
crore to the first defendant and a sum of Rs. 51 crore, in two tranches of
Rs. 40 crore and Rs. 11 crore, to the second defendant.
2
The second defendant has gone into liquidation on December 22,
2015 and the plaintiff claims to have applied for due leave under Section
446 of the Companies Act, 1956.
GA 1504 of 2015 is the plaintiff's principal interlocutory
application on which a limited order was passed at the ad-interim stage.
Such order was carried in appeal and, by an order of May 13, 2015, the
first five respondents before the appellate court, the defendant nos. 1 to
5 herein, remain restrained from dealing with "shares as well as assets in terms of loan agreement till disposal of the application pending before the learned Trial Court." The defendants are not represented and such order passed by the appellate court on May 13, 2015 is confirmed .
GA 3651 of 2015 is an application by a clutch of banks led by the State Bank of India as the lead bank of a joint lenders' forum pertaining to the second defendant. Such strangers to the suit have applied to be added as parties herein in terms of Order XXXIV Rule I of the Code. The applicants claim that they have a second charge over a property at 94/C Pratap Gadh, Opposite IIT Main Gate, Powai, Mumbai, 400 076; the plaintiff having the first charge in respect thereof. The applicants also claim to be the pledgees in respect of 26,00,000 shares of the second defendant company held by the promoter directors on pari passu basis with the plaintiff herein.
3
In view of the clear wording of Order XXXIV Rule I of the Code, the plaintiff does not seriously oppose the applicants being added as parties to the present suit. However, the plaintiff says that it must be clearly understood that the proposed added defendants' interest in the suit will remain confined to the Powai property and the promoters' shares of 26 lakh in the second defendant and to no other matter covered by the suit or any other security that the plaintiff enjoys in connection with the loans advanced to the second defendant. The plaintiff also maintains that the proposed added defendants will have no right to interfere with the plaintiff's rights against the first defendant and the securities enjoyed in such regard.
The applicants are entitled to be added as defendants to the suit. Accordingly, there will be an order in terms of prayer (b) of the notice of motion pertaining to GA 3651 of 2015. The amendment should be carried out by the department within four weeks from date and the reverification or reaffirmation completed within a fortnight thereafter. Copies of the amended plaint should be forwarded to all the defendants so that the written statements may be filed by all the defendants, including the added defendants, within six weeks of the receipt of the amended plaint.
The rights of the added defendant qua the subject-matter of the suit will remain restricted to the Powai property and the 26 lakh shares 4 held by the promoters in the second defendant, subject to the second defendant coming out of liquidation.
GA No. 2400 of 2016 has been filed by the plaintiff for a direction on the defendants to finalise terms of settlement that have been tentatively entered into between the original parties. Since the defendants are not represented and no formal terms have been executed, no order can be made on GA 2400 of 2016.
GA 2401 of 2016 has been filed by the plaintiff to inform this Court that the plaintiff has already applied under Section 446 of the Act of 1956 before the Bombay High Court. The petition also carries a prayer for the stay of all further proceedings in the suit, which prayer is expressly abandoned by the plaintiff today. In the light of the stand taken by the plaintiff today, no further order need be passed on GA 2401 of 2016.
Accordingly, GA 1504 of 2015, GA 3651 of 2015, GA 2400 of 2016 and GA 2401 of 2016 stand disposed of in terms of the specific orders pertaining thereto indicated hereinabove. There will be no order as to costs.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) G.S. Das