Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Sesa International Limited vs Avani Projects & Infrastructure ... on 14 June, 2017

Author: Soumen Sen

Bench: Soumen Sen

ORDER
                          GA No. 1705 of 2017
                           CS No. 113 of 2017
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction


                      SESA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
                                Versus
            AVANI PROJECTS & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.


    BEFORE:
    The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
    Date : 14th June, 2017.
                                                                Appearance:
                                        Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr. Advocate
                                  Mr. Ajay Krishna Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate
                                           Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate
                                                Mr. V. N. Dwivedi, Advocate
                                                 Ms. Jayanti Char, Advocate
                                                     ...for the petitioner.
                                              Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate
                                              Mr. Anirban Kr. Ray, Advocate
                                                    ...for the respondents.

Mr. Tilak Kr. Bose, Sr. Advocate ...for Reliance Commercial Finance.

The respondents have not answered to the show cause. The respondents however have prayed for two weeks' time to file an affidavit to disclose the present financial status of the respondents and the manner in which the respondents propose to secure the claim of the plaintiff. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondent No.1 may not have any defence to the claim of Rs. 21 crore. The respondents however are unable presently to pay the aforesaid sum. Moreover, the respondents have entered into an agreement for development of the property at 8, JBS Halden Avenue and it is submitted that the 2 order of injunction may affect the existing obligation. It is submitted that the respondents have already created a mortgage in favour of Reliance Commercial Finance and pursuant to such mortgage a sum of Rs. 270 crore was disbursed by the said company for the instant project. Another company belonging to the Reliance Group has also disbursed a sum of Rs. 50 crore for development of the self-same project and both the lenders have a pari passu charge over the securities created in respect of the property in question prior to the order dated 17th May 2017.

In the order dated 17th May 2017, I made it clear that the respondents shall not create any further encumbrance. If already a charge has been created in favour of Reliance, there cannot be any apprehension in the mind of Reliance that their right to enforce the mortgage is affected by the order dated 17th May 2017. Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Reliance Commercial Finance, tries to intervene at this stage and submits that the said order is likely to affect the rights of the said lenders. It would be open for the said lenders to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and pray for variation of the order dated 17th May 2017.

For the time being, in absence of any affidavit coming from the respondents, the order dated 17th May 2017 shall continue for a period of four weeks or until further order, whichever is earlier. The respondents shall file an affidavit within two weeks from 3 date. The matter is adjourned for three weeks and shall appear as a "New Motion". If there is an existing obligation under any mortgage, this order shall not affect any existing obligation or liability to be discharged by the respondents under any covenant.

The report filed by the special officer shows that only piling works have taken place. The report filed by the special officer is kept with the record. The report of the special officer shall be circulated amongst all parties. The special officer shall be paid a further remuneration of 1000 GMs by the petitioner and shall stand discharged.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) S. Kumar