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 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Manav Investment And Trading Co Ltd vs Dbs Bank India Ltd on 3 August, 2021

Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya

Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya

ODC-15

                                ORDER SHEET

                             IA No. GA 1 of 2021
                                     In
                               CS 138 of 2021

                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE


                MANAV INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO LTD.
                                VS
                         DBS BANK INDIA LTD



 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
 Date : 3rd August, 2021.

 [Via Video Conference]


                                                                       Appearance:
                                                             Mr. Anirban Ray, Adv.
                                                           Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
                                                           Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv.
                                                             Mr. Ramij Munsi, Adv.


           The Court: The petitioner is a promoter of Birla Tyres Limited which

 had taken loan from the respondent against pledge of shares of Birla Tyres.

The total amount of loan taken is approximately Rs.60 crores and corresponding number of shares were pledged by Birla Tyres and its de-merged concern with the respondent.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks stay of two notices of invocation issued by the respondent, both dated 17th July, 2021 by which 2 the respondent has demanded payment in excess of about Rs.15 crores from the petitioner by 6th August, 2021, failing which the respondent has threatened to sell the shares of the petitioner. The notice of invocation is under Section 176 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Learned counsel relies on a supplementary affidavit which was permitted to be filed in Court today, which shows that after the invocation notices, the respondent has proceeded to sell a number of shares of Birla Tyres contrary to the terms of the invocation letter. The date of sale of such shares is shown to be 30.07.2021. Counsel also places the relevant clause of the Facility Agreement entered into between the parties on 11th February, 2021 which imposes certain obligations on the party who alleges an event of default.

Upon considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that the sale of shares of Birla Tyres, to which the petitioner is a promoter, is required to be stayed on two grounds. First, Section 176 of the Contract Act - Pawnee's right where pawnor makes default - provides for the rights of a pawnee in the event of default on the part of the pawnor. The Pawnee may either file a suit against the pawnor on the date from retaining the goods pledged as a collateral security and may also sell the pledged goods but only upon giving reasonable notice of the sale to the pawnor. Second, the clause 7.1 of the Facility Agreement specifically provides that a cure period of 30 days shall be given in the event of default where the event of default is capable of a remedy. In the present case, none of the conditions as stated above has been complied with by the respondent. The respondent has admittedly sold shares 3 of Birla Tyres even before the expiry of the date mentioned in the invocation notice which was 6th August, 2021, there is admittedly no cure period of 30 days or reasonable notice has been given to the petitioner before the shares were sold on 30.07.2021.

For the above reasons, there shall be an order of injunction restraining the respondent from giving further effect to the letter dated 17th July, 2021 for the purpose of invoking or selling the pledged shares.

Since the petitioner has moved this application ex parte, the order of injunction shall remain operative for a period of three weeks from date.

The respondent shall be at liberty to apply for vacating or modifying the interim order.

List this matter on 20th August, 2021.

(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) sp3