Bombay High Court
Axis Trustee Services Limited vs Reliance Big Pvt. Ltd. And 4 Ors on 7 January, 2021
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
25-26-CARBPL-5006-2020+.DOCX
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 5006 OF 2020
WITH
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 5058 OF 2020
Axis Trustee Services Ltd ...Petitioner
Versus
Reliance Big Pvt Ltd & Ors ...Respondents
Dr Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, with Rohan Savant, Sachin Chandarana, Mayur Bhojwani and Reehan Ajmerwalla, i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co, for the Petitioner. Mr Feroze Patel, i/b Crawford Bayley & Co, for the Respondent.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
(Through Video Conference)
DATED: 7th January 2021
PC:-
Shephali
Mormare
1. Heard through video conferencing.
Digitally signed
by Shephali
Mormare
Date: 2021.01.07
19:14:02 +0530
2. I passed an order on 8th December 2020 in both these matters requiring a disclosure in terms of prayer clause (c) by 27th December 2020 by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. There is an Affidavit by Respondent No. 1. There is no Affidavit by Respondent No. 2. I am Page 1 of 4 7th January 2021 25-26-CARBPL-5006-2020+.DOCX informed by Mr Patel that Respondent No. 2 has received some documents from its Accountants or Auditors and these are being verified. An extension of time is sought.
3. Ordinarily, there would not have been a difficulty in allowing some latitude. However, the Affidavits in Reply filed by the 1st Respondent do not just leave much to be desired. They leave everything to be desired. Leaving aside the fact that they were served late, and for no reason that I can tell, apart from taking a number of defences on merits, they do not contain from paragraph 23 onwards under the caption "Disclosures" any meaningful disclosure at all. For instance, in the table below paragraph 24 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 5006 of 2020 there is a description of land of the alleged value of Rs. 12 lakhs. The area is not mentioned. Encumbrances, if any, are not mentioned. The tenure of the land is not mentioned. Whether it is built or unbuilt is not mentioned. It is only stated that it is for a windmill, and this is item 2 said to be of a value of Rs. 2,30,72,040/- with an installed capacity of 750 kw. It is unclear whether the windmill itself is encumbered or indeed whether it is even commissioned and operational. Then there is said to be a security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- with the government, trade receivables of just over Rs. 48 lakhs and cash and cash equivalents of just under Rs. 37 lakhs. The trade receivables are all from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the cash and cash equivalents are said to be in an escrow account. Again, there are absolutely no details.
4. The so-called Affidavits do not even have a minimal set of annexures nor is any compilation filed.
Page 2 of 47th January 2021 25-26-CARBPL-5006-2020+.DOCX
5. As against this, there is the claim of the Petitioners, albeit yet to be executed, in excess of Rs. 377 crores and that, too, in only one of the two Petitions.
6. To file an affidavit like is to do nothing except express the utmost contempt for the authority of the Court and its orders. There was not the slightest ambiguity about the nature of the disclosure required.
7. By Friday, 15th January 2021 (there will be no possibility of an adjournment), Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in both matters will now file proper affidavits of disclosure disclosing:
(a) their financial returns for the last three years;
(b) certified statement of bank accounts for last one year;
(c) a list of all gross block fixed assets with complete particulars of location, area, details of encumbrances, name of secured lenders, date of security, amount due and the status;
(d) a list of all other movables (except bank accounts), i.e. including all investments whether in public or private companies, debt, equity and every other portfolio;
(e) all other movable items including automobiles, computers, servers, equipment and other assets of the acquisition or replacement value of more than Rs. 1 lakh.Page 3 of 4
7th January 2021 25-26-CARBPL-5006-2020+.DOCX
8. I am making it clear that unless I have complete compliance with this order by 15th January 2021, I will consider appointing the Receiver of every single one of the assets of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 irrespective of where they are situated. What is not going to be tolerated is this attempt to defy orders of this Court by filing such thoroughly meaningless and deliberately misleading affidavits in only ostensible compliance with and paying merely lip-service to specific orders of the Court.
9. In default, and in addition, if necessary, I will initiate proceedings in Contempt including against principal officers of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This is a commercial Court and matters in it can be dealt in a commercially sensible fashion. I trust my meaning is now abundantly clear.
10. Finally, I will not accept any application for an extension of time nor an excuse that because of Covid the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 or their principal officers are unable to access their records. That statement simply cannot be believed any longer.
11. List the matter high on board on 18th January 2021.
12. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 4 of 4 7th January 2021