Calcutta High Court
Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Aviral Maritime Infrastructure Dahej ... on 6 January, 2026
ORDER OCD-17
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Commercial Division
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/1006/2025
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
VS
AVIRAL MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE DAHEJ PRIVATE LIMITE
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date : 6th January, 2026.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rishad Medora, Adv.
Ms. R. Hariharan, Adv.
Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Soumyajit Saha, Adv.
..for the petitioner
The Court:- The petitioner has preferred the present application under
section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking, inter alia, an
order of injunction restraining the respondent from utilizing and/or dealing
with and/or encashing or creating 3 rd party interest in respect of the settlement amounts received or to be received by the respondent under the OTS of Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure Limited in its Bank Account No. 917020055180639 opened with Axis Bank Limited, Salt Lake Electronics Complex Branch or in any other Bank Account operated by the respondent.
It is a case of the petitioner that SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited (SIFL) had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 525,00,00,000/- (Five Hundred and Twenty Five Crore Only) in favour of the respondent for the development 2 of an all weather multi cargo port project at Dahej, Gujarat, pursuant to the sanction letter dated 29th June, 2018 and disbursed an amount of Rs. 4,77,90,00,000/- to the respondent. Subsequently, the parties executed a Rupee Loan Agreement bearing No. SRE 772 dated 29.06.2018. Thereafter, the respondent executed a deed of hypothecation dated 21 st January, 2019 in favour of the SIFL, whereby the respondent hypothecated all its assets including all rights, titles etc., current and future assets, including without limitation, cash-flows, receivables, outstanding monies, claims and demands which may become due and owing or accruing to the respondent during the continuation of the deed of hypothecation.
Article 2.5.1 read with schedule 1 of the loan agreement provided that the interest on the said loan facility shall be repayable monthly, as per the applicable SREI Prime Lending Rate, by the respondent to SIFL and shall commence on the first interest payment date falling immediately after the initial disbursement date. It is further contended that clause 8.1.2 of article VIII of the loan agreement, provided that in the event the respondent failed to repay the interest payable under the loan agreement on the interest repayment date, the same would constitute an event of default under the said loan agreement.
The respondent committed default by failing to pay interest in accordance with the agreed repayment schedule.
In the meantime, corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against SIFL and its holding company before the National Company Law Tribunal, Calcutta. Thereafter, the Resolution Plan submitted by National Asset 3 Reconstruction Company Limited for reconstruction of SIFL was approved by the NCLT, Kolkata, vide order dated 11.08.2023. In terms of the said Resolution Plan, the Petitioner was deemed to be the lender in respect of all loans earlier sanctioned by SIFL, in consonance with the Business Transfer Agreement dated 16.08.2019 and its First Amendment dated 14.11.2019, executed between the Petitioner and SIFL.
By virtue of the resolution plan and the business transfer agreement, the petitioner issued a demand notice dated 29.11.2022 calling upon the respondent to pay the outstanding interest aggregating to Rs. 37,34,73,126/- within fifteen days. Upon failure of the respondent to comply with the said demand, the petitioner issued a loan recall notice dated 12 th December, 2025 for a sum of Rs. 9,12,63,29,711/-.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file an application against the respondent under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the Learned Tribunal on account of the financial default committed by the respondent and the same is pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that SIFL had sanctioned cumulative loan facilities aggregating to Rs. 335 crores to Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure Limited, a company belonging to the 'Sandesara Group' under loan agreements dated 28.06.2013 and 04.07.2015. Additionally, SIFL advanced loans of Rs. 10 Crores each to N.S. Investment Company Private Limited and Bigline Trading Company Private Limited vide loan agreements dated 25.04.2016. Further, SIFL sanctioned a loan facility of Rs. 110 Crores to PMT Engineering Limited vide loan agreement dated 05.05.2017, followed by a 4 supplementary agreement dated 10.07.2017, sanctioning an additional Rs. 40 Crores. All the aforesaid entities are part of the Sandesara Group of Companies.
Thereafter, vide an Assignment Agreement dated 30.06.2018, SIFL assigned and transferred all its rights, title and interest as a lender in respect of the aforesaid loan facilities to the Respondent, who thereby stepped into the shoes of SIFL and became entitled to recover all outstanding dues from the Sandesara Group entities.
Upon defaults by the Sandesara Group companies, multiple proceedings were initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Respondent, as a secured creditor, lodged a claim of Rs. 720,27,79,504/-, along with interest at 6.5%, before the Liquidator, the total claim aggregating to approximately Rs. 1,062.54 Crores.
In parallel, several criminal proceedings, including those under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, were initiated against the promoters and directors of the Sandesara Group.Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the promoters and directors of the Sandesara Group had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19 th November, 2025 noted that:-
"12. In view of the foregoing, subject to deposit of Rs. 5100 crores as indicated towards full and final settlement with the lender banks and investigating agencies, these petitions deserve to be allowed granting the following reliefs -
(i) The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed directing quashing of the proceedings as indicated in relief 5 clause (i) to (x) quoted hereinabove in paragraph 1 of this order. The said quashing would be operative on deposit of Rs. 5100 crores as a full and final payment based on consensus, on or before 17.12.2025.
(ii) The said amount be deposited before the Registry of this Court on or before the date as specified in clause (i) above, permitting the petitioners to make the deposits in separate tranches and dates. on receiving the amount, it shall be kept in a short time interest bearing fixed deposit account in any nationalized bank till its disbursement.
(iii) Upon submitting the claims, the deposited amount shall be disbursed to the respective lender Banks on proportionate basis in reference to the amount due towards them. The Registrar (Judicial-Administration) shall verify the details of the amount due, proportionate entitlement and accordingly disburse the amount in the account of the respective banks. The Registrar is at liberty to take assistance of Account personnels, if needed.
(iv) Registrar (Judicial-Administration) is further at liberty to the seek clarification, if needed from the Bench, on the issue of the proportionate disbursement.
(v) In consequence of the above, the litigation with respect to the loan amount of the petitioners for which the FIR was registered and the OTS was sanctioned and approved, shall be put to an end by way of full and final settlement as per consensus and this litigation shall be put to quietus.
(vi) These directions as issued are in peculiar facts of this case, therefore, they shall not be treated as precedent.
(vii) Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and be treated as disposed-of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand be treated disposed-of."
Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme court quashed the FIR's filed against the directors and promoters of the 'Sandesara Group' subject to the payment of Rs.5100 Cr as full and final settlement to all lenders on or before 17.12.2025.
Mr. Margo J.B. Singh, acting as Settlement Representative of the Sandesara Group, vide email dated 03.12.2025, informed all lender banks that, 6 in respect of the OTS of Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure Limited, a sum of Rs. 973.35 Crores would be credited to the lead banker UCO Bank, Kolkata, for onward distribution to consortium lenders, including the Respondent herein.
In view of the aforesaid developments, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent is likely to receive substantial settlement amounts either in its Axis Bank account bearing No. 917020055180639 or in any other bank account operated by it. There exists a real and imminent apprehension that the Respondent may dissipate or divert the said funds, thereby frustrating the Petitioner's claims. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking interim protection restraining the Respondent from dealing with or encumbering the said settlement proceeds.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the Loan Agreement dated 29.06.2018 and the Deed of Hypothecation dated 21.01.2019 particularly clause 8.1.2, thereof, a charge was created in favour of the petitioner qua all the receivables.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Loan Agreement dated 29.06.2018 and the Deed of Hypothecation dated 21.01.2019 contain valid and binding arbitration clauses, which the Petitioner intends to invoke. It is further submitted that this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
This Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the documents in detail.
7
After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the Petitioner has established a strong prima facie case for grant of interim protection. The existence of a valid and subsisting loan transaction, the admitted default on the part of the Respondent, and the Petitioner's enforceable contractual and proprietary rights over the receivables and cash flows hypothecated under the Loan Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation clearly warrant protection. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Petitioner, as the settlement amounts receivable by the Respondent pursuant to the One Time Settlement of Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure Limited constitute identifiable funds against which the Petitioner asserts its claim, and any dissipation thereof would seriously prejudice the Petitioner's rights. This Court is further satisfied that denial of interim relief would result in irreparable loss and injury to the Petitioner, inasmuch as diversion, encashment or creation of third-party interests in the said settlement proceeds would render the arbitral proceedings infructuous and defeat the very purpose of the reliefs contemplated under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly in view of the financial difficulties reflected in the balance sheet., Accordingly, the respondent is restrained from utilizing, withdrawing, encashing, alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of the settlement amounts received or to be received under the said one time settlement, whether in the Bank account specified herein (Bank Account No. 917020055180639 opened with Axis Bank Limited, Salt Lake Electronics 8 Complex Branch) or in any other account operated by the respondent, for a period of three weeks.
In the meanwhile, the Petitioner is directed to take immediate steps for the constitution of the arbitral proceedings in accordance with law.
List the matter on the next week.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.) Arsad