Gujarat High Court
United Shippers Limited vs Vitol S.A on 18 February, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7 of 2023
In R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 19 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7 of 2023
================================================================
UNITED SHIPPERS LIMITED
Versus
VITOL S.A. & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANOJ KHATRI WITH MR JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HARSH N
PAREKH(6951) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 18/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in OJCA No. 1 of 2018 in R/PETN. under Arbitration Act No. 19 of 2017, whereby, the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the application and ordered to disburse an amount of Rs.17,34,632/- alongwith interest accrued thereon Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined in favour of the appellant and the remaining amount of Rs.5,05,65,368/- alongwith interest accrued there on was ordered to be paid to the Judgment Creditor respondent No.1 herein.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :
2.1 That one Bhatia Group of Companies which includes Bhatia Global Trading Limited, Bhatia Industries and Infrastructure Ltd. and Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd., had entered into a contract dated 18 th July, 2014. The said contract was entered into for a period of 8 months i.e from 1 st August, 2014 to 31st March 2015 for handling their coal and carrying out other stevedoring activities at the port of Navlakhi. Pursuant thereto, vessel M.V. Iolcos Confidence and Liberty Prudencia arrived at Navlakhi Port, Gujarat on 21 st November 2014 and 29th November, 2014 respectively and discharged and stored the said coal at the Appellant's premises at Navlakhi Port. Thereafter, pursuant to an order dated 18th December 2014 passed by the Additional District Judge at Morbi, Gujarat an order was passed in terms of the precept issued by the Bombay High Court, where an injunction Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined order was passed against the 40,600 M.T of cargo discharged from the vessel M.V. Lolcos Confidence and 21,889 M.T. of cargo discharged from the vessel M.V. LIBERTY PRUDENCIA.
2.2 It is the case of the appellant that Respondent No.1 i.e. Award Holder had applied for several extension of the precepts time and again from the Bombay High Court which were allowed. The said coal was lying at the premises allotted to the Appellant incurring huge costs and expenses towards maintenance and hence, the Appellant was constrained to file an intervention application before the Bombay High Court vide notice of motion seeking intervention in the execution application filed by Respondent No.1 and other necessary directions with respect to the coal lying at the Appellant's premises. That, vide an order dated 30 th July 2015, the Appellants were allowed to intervene in the proceedings however, there were no orders passed with respect to the custody or possession of the coal since there were appeals and other proceedings pending between Award Debtor, Bhatia Global and other Bhatia Companies. During the said period, the coal kept lying at the premises allotted to the Appellant under attachment order passed by the High Court. An application was Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined made before Additional District Court, Morbi for sale/ shifting of the said coal as the Port Authorities started pressurizing the Appellant to shift the coal as it was causing pollution resulting in environmental damage inside the port area and a consent order dated 11th May 2016 came to be passed by the Morbi Court for sale of the said coal discharged from the vessel M.V. Liberty Prudencia.
2.3 Thereafter, the Appellant on numerous occasions had made various applications to courts seeking urgent reliefs for shifting of the coal. The Appellant had also addressed letters to the Award Creditor i.e. Respondent No.1 requesting them to shift the cargo from the said premises as it was causing severe commercial loses as well as environmental issues due to extensive smouldering of coal, the fire within the coal stacks was spreading and the problem was further exacerbated by the prevailing weather conditions of intense heat, high temperature and strong winds, which was resulting in the fire spreading to other cargo. However, no steps were taken by the Respondent No.1 to shift the cargo from the Appellant's premises.Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined 2.4 It is the case of the Appellant that the Gujarat Maritime Board had addressed various notices to the Appellant holding them responsible for causing air pollution, health hazards and other losses to which is being caused due to the fire in stacks of this coal. The Appellant had issued letters to the Respondent No. 1 to shift the cargo but no shifting was carried out by them. The Appellant had filed appropriate applications seeking shifting of the coal in various Courts. That, the process of sale/ shifting of the said coal which was lying at the plot allotted to the Appellant, which was discharged from the vessel, M.V. locos Confidence commenced on 18 th November 2017 and completed on 14th January 2018. The total amount deposited in the court out of the sale proceeds of the said coal from the vessel M.V. Lolcos Confidence is a sum of Rs. 3,74,12,240.00. Similarly, the process of sale/shifting of the said coal which was lying at the plot allotted to the Applicant by Port Authorities, which was discharged from the vessel, M.V. Liberty Prudencia commenced on 4th June 2016 and completed on 24th June 2016. The total amount deposited in the court out of the sale proceeds of the said coal from the vessel M.V. Liberty Prudencia is a sum of Rs.1,01,96,141.00.
Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined 2.5 The Appellant had taken care/maintained the coal whilst
it was lying at the plot allotted to them. The Appellant had to continuously sprinkle water on the said coal and also to shuffle the cargo with the help of machineries and men to control the fire emanating from it, as coal is highly combustible cargo. If it was not for the Appellant the said coal would have turned into ashes completely and would not have fetched the value it has in the auction sale. The Appellant for no fault of theirs were unable to use the said plot for storing other cargo and have lost huge revenue which they are not claiming. Furthermore, the Appellant has taken continuous efforts for preservation, shifting and sale of the cargo. Under their agreement with Bhatia Group of Companies the Appellant had a lien on the cargo for the charges incurred for maintaining the cargo and ground rent. The Appellant has a total outstanding claim of Rs.1,24,50,338.00 (Rupees One Crore Twenty Four lakhs Fifty Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) towards storing and maintaining the cargo discharged at the plot allotted to them from the above mentioned two (2) vessels. However, despite filing all the documents in proof of the abovementioned amounts being due to them, the learned Single Judge has passed an order dated 07.10.2023 directing a Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined sum of Rs.17,34,632.00 alongwith accrued interest to be paid to the appellant from the sale proceeds.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in OJCA No. 1 of 2018 in R/PETN. under Arbitration Act No. 19 of 2017, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manoj Khatri assisted by learned advocate Mr. Jwalit Soneji, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate assisted by learned advocate Mr. Harsh Parekh, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Khatri has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous, illegal and unjust as the same is passed without assigning any reason as to why their entire claim of Rs.1,24,50,338.00 should not be paid to the appellant. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has completely ignored and over looked the facts of the present case while passing a perverse order by partly allowing the application and Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined rejecting a major part of the claim made by the appellant, without appreciating the entire facts and documents produced by the appellant. He has submitted that the plot, where the vehicle was kept alongwith the goods, was allotted to the appellant and he had incurred a huge expenditure to keep the vehicle alongwith the goods intact and he has received various invoices for the same and therefore, the appellant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,04,81,548.00 as he has not charged the amount towards barge charges. 5.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Khatri has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of State Project Director, UP Education For All Project Board & Ors. vs. Saroj Maurya & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 3465 of 2023, and emphasized upon the observations made in paragraph 3, which reads as under :
"3. We are of the opinion that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained. In this regard, we are benefitted by the following observations made by this Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow: -
"23. We are not venturing to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the contentions of law raised before the High Court in the present petition, but Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined it was certainly expected of the High Court to record some kind of reasons for rejecting the revision petition filed by the Department at the very threshold. A litigant has a legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his claim/prayer. It is then alone, that a party would be in a position to challenge the order on appropriate grounds. Besides, this would be for the benefit of the higher or the appellate court. As arguments bring things hidden and obscure to the light of reasons, reasoned judgment where the law and factual matrix of the case is discussed, provides lucidity and foundation for conclusions or exercise of judicial discretion by the courts.
24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be.
25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty imposed upon the Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined courts to record reasons.
26. Our procedural law and the established practice, in fact, imposes unqualified obligation upon the courts to record reasons. There is hardly any statutory provision under the Income Tax Act or under the Constitution itself requiring recording of reasons in the judgments but it is no more res integra and stands unequivocally settled by different judgments of this Court holding that the courts and tribunals are required to pass reasoned judgments/ orders. In fact, Order 14 Rule 2 read with Order 20 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that, the court should record findings on each issue and such findings which obviously should be reasoned would form part of the judgment, which in turn would be the basis for writing a decree of the court.
27. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judgemade law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] there are apt observations in this regard to say "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court. Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove."
5.2 Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned advocate Mr. Khatri has urged that the present Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside and the amount claimed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge be awarded in favour of the present appellant.
6. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, has opposed the present appeal by way of filing affidavit-in-reply and submitted that even from the bare reading of the document produced at Pg. 231 of the compilation, the copy of the ledger, which is the part of the original application, more particularly the entry dated 22.12.2014, wherein, it was debited by the present appellant as Barge Freight Charges to the tune of Rs.1,07,15,706.00, against which, the closing balance was Rs.1,04,81,546.00, meaning thereby, that the remaining amount is Rs. 2,34,158.00. He has submitted that the respondent has clarified that the calculation of the amount of Rs.17,34,632.00 made by the Court is based upon the clarification given by the respondent in paragraph 7 onwards in the Preliminary Affidavit dated 06.01.2024 filed by the respondent No.1 - Vitol S.A., wherein, proper calculation was given and the copy of the ledger was also annexed with the Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined same and therefore, the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Khatri is not tenable. He has also submitted that since the order was passed by the learned Single Judge with the consent of the parties, therefore, now it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant that the order was passed without assigning any reason, which is contrary to the facts. 6.1 Referring to paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the appellant, wherein disputed facts have been countered by the appellant, learned senior advocate Mr. Soparkar has submitted that it was mentioned that the Respondent is relying on a YouTube recording of the statement given by the Advocate of the Appellant at the hearing dated 20th February, 2023. In this recording, it is allegedly stated that, the appellant would not pursue its purported claim against BGTL for Barge Freight Charges against the sale proceeds and that the Appellant would raise its purported claim, meaning thereby, that except this, the only charges for which the appellant is entitled to is of Rs.17,34,632.00. 6.2 In support of his submissions, learned senior advocate Mr. Soparkar has referred and relied upon the decision of the Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Y. Sleebachen and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Superintending Engineer Water Resources Organisation / Public Works Department and Another, reported in [2015] 5 SCC 747, wherein, it has been observed and held in paragraphs 16 and 17 as under :
"16. In this behalf, we would like to reproduce the following discussion in the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463.
"4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is' incumbent, upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined call attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chanderwati That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment."
17. It is also pertinent to point out that here also, no application was filed by the respondents before the District Court immediately after the passing of decrees in compromise terms, or even thereafter, for recall of the compromise order with the plea that such a compromise was unacceptable as the Government Pleader was not authorised to enter into any such settlement. Instead appeals were filed before the High Court. We are of the opinion that respondents should have approached the trial court in the first instance as it is the trial judge before whom the compromise was recorded and as he was privy to events that led to the compromise order, he was in a better position to deal with this aspect." 6.3 Referring to the above decision, learned senior advocate Mr. Soparkar has submitted that the appellant has no right to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the present appeal be dismissed and the order passed by the learned single Judge be confirmed.
7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined
We have also considered the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the learned Single Judge while dwelling into the issue relating to the entitlement of the amount as claimed by the appellant, has considered the submissions and after considering the legal pronouncements referred and relied upon by both the sides, has observed and held in paragraphs 46, 47, 49 and 50, which read as under :
"46. It was submitted that as per the statement of account submitted by the applicant USL, there was outstanding dues of Rs. 19,68,792.10 with regard to the storage charges of coal unloaded from vessel M.V. Liberty Prudencia and as per the statement of account produced on record for the storage charges of coal of 40600 M.T. unloaded from vessel M.V. IoIcos Confidence BGTL as on 4.07.2018, the outstanding balance is 10,481,546/-. It was therefore, submitted that the applicant USL is not entitled to get any amount from the sale proceeds deposited before this Court. It was further submitted that the USL would be suffering no loss whatsoever if they would have raised invoices during the pendency of attachment and therefore, it is purely a private dispute between USL and the respondent no.1- Judgment Debtor from whom USL can seek to recover alleged loss in absence of any causal connection with attachment levied by the Court in execution proceedings against respondent no.1 Judgment Debtor and purported losses sustained by USL.
47. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates, Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 filed by the liquidator of the company in liquidation Judgment Debtor is considered first because if the said application is allowed then no further order would be required to be passed in the matter.
49. As per the provisions of section 73 of the Code where assets are held by Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined decree for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor, then after deducting the costs of realization, the Court is required to distribute the proceeds of the execution i.e. amount realised on sale of assets ratably amongst all such persons. Therefore, the moot question that would arise as to whether amount realised on sale of the coal cargo by this Court as well as amount deposited before the District Court, Morbi on sale of part of coal cargo whether the said amount is required to be transferred to the liquidator of the Judgment Debtor company or it is required to be ratably distributed amongst the persons who have claimed against the Judgment Debtor company.
50. It would, therefore, have to be determined as to whether amount realised on sale of coal cargo would be of Liquidation Estate of the company in liquidation which is a Judgment Debtor in execution proceedings or not as per Section 36 of the IBC which refers to Liquidation Estate. Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case of Rikhabchand Mohanlal Surana (supra) had an occasion to consider such issue and in facts of the said case appellant Rikhabchand Mohanlal Judgment Creditor supplied certain goods to the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. Judgment Debtor and as sale proceeds of the goods remained unpaid, suit was filed, and decree was passed. However, subsequently, when the Judgment Creditor filed an Execution Application seeking to attach certain moneys in the hands of Canara Bank, Sholapur, an attachment order under Order XXI Rule 46 of the Code was accordingly passed and the bank deposited the amount in the Court. Division Bench of the Bombay High Court therefore, considered the issue as to what are rights of attaching creditor when garnishee has deposited the money in the Court and a final order is made by Executing Court, as Judgment Debtor was ordered to be wound up under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. Bombay High Court considered the commentary on Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure and noticed that there are differences in England and India respectively as to the position of attaching creditors as under :
"Attachment creates no charge or lien upon the attached property. It only confers a right on the decree-holder to have the attached property kept in custodia legis for being dealt with by the Court in accordance with law. It merely prevents and avoids private alienations; it does not confer any title on the attaching creditors. There is nothing in any of the provisions of the Code which in terms makes the attaching creditor a secured creditor or creates any charge or lien in Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined his favour over the property attached. But an attaching creditor acquires, by virtue of the attachment, a right to have the attached property kept in custodia legis for the satisfaction of his debt, and an unlawful interference with that right constitutes an actionable wrong."
8. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is justified in passing the impugned judgment and order which is under challenge. On perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the submissions of both the sides and the decisions cited by both the sides, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the order and therefore, no interference is required to be called for and thus, the present appeal, being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Khatri has lastly urged that the amount which is deposited and lying in the Nazir Department of this Court be permitted to be withdrawn, for which the other side has no objection.
9.1 Registry is therefore, directed to pay the amount of
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/OJA/7/2023 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
Rs.17,34,632.00 with interest, if any, accrued thereon to the appellant - United Shippers Ltd. and pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,05,65,368.00 with interest, if any accrued thereon to the respondent No.1 Decree Holder - M/s. Vistol S.A. as observed by the learned Single Judge, through Account Payee Cheque / RTGS after proper verification.
10. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, ACJ) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:55:31 IST 2025