Calcutta High Court
Bhagwandas Auto Finance Limited & Anr vs Hdfc Bank Limited on 3 February, 2010
1
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
GA No.56 of 2010
With
APOT No.3 of 2010
In the matter of:
Bhagwandas Auto Finance Limited & Anr.
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited
GA No.57 of 2010
With
APOT No.4 of 2010
In the matter of:
Bhagwandas Auto Finance Limited & Anr.
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited
GA No.58 of 2010
With
APOT No.5 of 2010
In the matter of:
Bhagwandas Auto Finance Limited & Anr.
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited
2
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice Banerjee
And
The Hon'ble Justice Kishore Kumar Prasad
Date: 03.02.2010
Appearance:
Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhya Sr. Adv.,
Mr. D. Basak Adv., for the appellant.
Mr. Pratap Chatterjee Sr. Adv., Mr.
Utpal Bose Sr. Adv., Paritosh Sinha
Adv., for the respondent.
The Court:- Since all the three matters pertain to identical facts these are taken up together analogously.
The application under Section 9 filed by the respondent bank was allowed by the learned Single Judge by rejecting the contention of the appellant that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application in view of the forum selection clause. Moreover, under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the said application under Section 9.
This appeal would be heard. Mr. Chatterjee appears for the sole respondent. Hence service of notice of appeal is dispensed with. 3
Let requisite number of composite paper book incorporating all papers used before the court below must be filed within two weeks from date. In default, place it for final order.
Heard the learned Counsel on the issue of interim protection. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee learned Senior Advocate appearing for the bank contends that dues as of date is to the tune of Rs.2.74 crores. Such submission is strenuously disputed by Mr. Bandhopadhya learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants. Mr. Bandhopadhya, however, in absence of appropriate instruction, is not in a position to apprise the Court as to what is the exact amount of due according to the appellant. Mr. Bandhopadhyha, further contends on instruction that a sum of Rs.10 lacs has been recovered from the appellant in the meantime. The appellant is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs right now. Such offer of the appellant, in our view, is not reasonable compared to the dues as claimed by the bank recorded above. Hence we are unable to give any interim protection to the appellant save and except that the order impugned would abide by the result of the appeal and steps, if any taken in the meantime, would abide by the result of the appeal. Place the appeal for hearing on 3rd March, 2010.
Mr. Pratik Dhar was appointed Receiver by the Learned Single Judge. Mr. Dhar, has expressed his inability to continue further. He has also returned the cheque for further remuneration, which was given to him in terms of the direction of the Division Bench. Since he is unable to continue because of his pre occupation we wish to relieve him from the responsibility. In his place and 4 stead Mr. Prithiviraj Sinha learned Advocate be appointed Receiver. Mr. Sinha would be paid an initial remuneration of Rs.10,000/- for the time being.
We, however, direct the respondent bank to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Mr. Dhar on account of his remuneration for the service rendered by him. We humbly request Mr. Dhar to accept such remuneration.
GA No.56 of 2010, GA No.57 of 2010 and GA No.58 of 2010 are disposed of without any order as to costs.
Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations contained in the stay application are deemed to have not been admitted.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Banerjee, J.) (Kishore Kumar Prasad, J.) SP/