Calcutta High Court
Srei Equipment Finance Ltd vs Balasore Alloys Ltd on 29 January, 2021
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
OC-3
AP/249/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.
VERSUS
BALASORE ALLOYS LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date: 29th January, 2021.
(Via Video Conference)
Appearance:
Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Adv.
Mr. Rishad Medora, Adv.
Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Adv.
The Court: The financier seeks interim protection under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Learned advocate appearing for the financier submits that, a master lease
agreement was entered into between the parties on May 5, 2017. In terms of
such master lease agreement, the respondent was obliged to make payment of
lease rentals. The respondent failed and neglected to pay on and from 29th monthly lease rentals. A sum in excess of Rs.1 crore is now due and payable by the respondent to the financier on such account. The respondent is not paying the lease rentals. The respondent is using the assets covered under the master 2 lease agreement. Unless such assets are protected, the same will be detrimental to the interest of the financier.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, the financier made a reference to arbitration and that the learned Arbitrator entered into such reference and a meeting was held in the month of December 2017. Since the learned Arbitrator entered into reference, and held a meeting, the financier needs to approach the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act of 1996. He submits that the attempts for settlement failed.
It appears from the records that, the parties tried to negotiate a settlement. By an order dated January 22, 2021, the parties were afforded one opportunity to settle the matter. The respondent made over a cheque to the financier on certain terms. The financier did not encash the cheque as the financier was not agreeable to the terms proposed by the respondent.
No doubt, a reference is pending. Pendency of the reference ipso facto does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. The petition is pending since September 2020.
It would be appropriate that the assets covered under the master lease agreement are protected during the pendency of the arbitration. Given the fact that huge amount are outstanding and the respondent is not paying the monthly lease rentals it would be appropriate that a Receiver is appointed to take actual physical possession of such assets.
Ms. Sanchari Chakraborty, Advocate is appointed as the Receiver for the purpose of taking actual physical possession of such assets. The learned 3 Receiver will make an inventory of such assets. The Receiver will be paid an initial remuneration of 3000 GMs. payable by the financier at the first instance.
In the event, the Receiver requires police assistance, he is at liberty to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police for such assistance. Such Superintendent of Police is requested to make available such police assistance as required so as to implement this order.
The parties no doubt will observe the Covid-19 guidelines in place at the material point of time.
Let affidavit in opposition be filed within three weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, within a week thereafter. List the application as "Adjourned Motion" four weeks hence.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) sp/