Bombay High Court
L& T Finance Limited vs Vardhman Chemtech Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2014
Author: R.D.Dhanuka
Bench: R.D.Dhanuka
RNG 1 apl.1460.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) No.1460 of 2013 with
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.2178 of 2013
L& T Finance Limited .. Petitioner
vs.
Vardhman Chemtech Ltd & ors .. Respondents
Appearances:
Ms.S.I.Joshi a/w Mr.Anand Poojari i/b M/s S.I.Joshi & Co for Petitioner
Mr.Amit Shroff for Respondents
CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA, J
ORDER RESERVED ON : 23.12.2013
PRONOUNCED ON: 7 .1.2014
P. C.
1. By this Petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner seeks appointment of Court Receiver,
injunction in respect of the properties described at Exhibit G, for an order
of deposit in the sum of Rs.3,78,01,512/- with further interest thereon and
for an order and direction against the respondents to disclose the location of
the properties.
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 2 apl.1460.13
A few relevant facts for deciding this Petition are as under :
2. Vide loan agreement dated 19.11.2010 entered into between the
petitioner and respondent no.1 the petitioner granted a loan of Rs.10 crores
to the respondents on terms and conditions described in the said agreement.
The respondent nos. 2 to 4 were the guarantors of respondent no.1 in
respect of the said loan and executed a deed of guarantee in favour of the
petitioner. The respondent no.1 was liable to repay the entire amount with
interest to the petitioner in instalments. It is the case of the petitioners that
since the respondents committed defaults in making the payment in
instalments, the petitioner issued a demand cum termination notice dated
8.8.2013 through their advocate thereby terminating the loan agreement
and calling upon the respondents to pay Rs.3,78,01,512/- with further
interest thereon. The petitioner referred the dispute to Mr.B.B.Jain advocate
who was appointed as the sole Arbitrator by the petitioner. According to
the petitioner, there was no response to the said notice nor any repayment
by the respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 3 apl.1460.13
3. By an ad interim order dated 5.9.2013 this Court passed an order in
terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) thereby directing the respondents to
disclose the location of the properties described in Exhibit G and injunction
restraining the respondents from parting with possession, creating third
party rights, alienating and/or encumbering with the properties described in
Exhibit G to the petition.
4. In the month of November, 2013 the respondents filed a Notice of
motion (Lodging) No. 2178 of 2013 in this Arbitration proceedings inter
alia praying for condonation of delay in filing the Notice of motion and for
vacating the ex-parte ad interim order dated 5.9.2013 passed by this Court
on the ground of jurisdiction. The respondents did not file any affidavit on
merits and also did not disclose any assets though directed by the said order
dated 5.9.2013 passed by this Court.
5. Ms.Joshi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the whereabouts of the hypothecated assets are not known.
There is no response to the notice of demand. According to the petitioners,
the respondents have to pay a sum of Rs.3,78,01,512- as on 7.8.2013 with
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 4 apl.1460.13
further interest thereon @ 36 % p.a. till payment. The learned counsel
submits that the petitioner has good chances of succeeding in arbitration.
The properties which are secured in favour of the petitioner are not
sufficient to protect the claims of the petitioner. It is submitted that there
are no other securities to secure the claim of the petitioner. The respondents
are in financial distress and the petitioner apprehends that the respondents
may alienate the properties with a view to delay the execution of the award
as a decree. It is submitted that if the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner
are not granted, the award will remain as a paper decree and would be
unexecutable. The petitioner thus, seeks appointment of receiver in respect
of the properties described at serial nos. 1 to 4 of Exhibit G and also seeks
appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the items described at Sr. 5 of
Exhibit G which are hypothecated in favour of the petitioner vide deed of
hypothecation dated 19.11.2010.
6. Mr.Shroff learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition
as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. The learned counsel submits that the respondents are carrying on
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 5 apl.1460.13
business at Chandigarh. It is submitted that the Deed of guarantee were
also executed at Chandigarh. Even the demand promissory note dated
19.11.2010 was executed at New Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioner
has not obtained leave under clause XII of the Letters Patent. The learned
counsel submits that in any event the petitioner are secured by pari passu
charge on the hypothecated assets and no case is made out for attachment
before Judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
7. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this court in
KOTAK MAHINDRA FINANCE LTD vs T.THOMAS
EDUCATIONAL TRUST reported in 2003 (5) Bom.C.R. 579 in support
of his submissions that since no part of cause of action has arisen at
Mumbai even though the agreement provides for conferring jurisdiction on
the Courts at Mumbai, this Court cannot entertain this petition since this
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The learned counsel
placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in NAVIN MAKHIJA vs
TULSIBHIMJIYANI reported in 2013 (1) Mh.L.J 173 in support of his
submissions that in any event the petitioner ought to have obtained leave
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 6 apl.1460.13
under clause XII of the Letters Patent and since no leave is obtained this
petition cannot be entertained in this Court on that ground also. Reliance is
placed on para 13 of the said judgment which holds that this Court granted
leave under clause XII of the Letters Patent to the petitioners in view of
the fact that the property was situated at Mumbai, and thus the petitioner in
this case also ought to have obtained leave under clause XII of the Letters
Patent in view of the fact that the property is situated outside Mumbai.
8. Ms.Joshi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in rejoinder
submits that the loan was sanctioned from the corporate office of the
petitioner. Clause 3.3 of the loan agreement provides for payment of the
loan instalments and other charges and moneys due under that agreement
which shall be payable by the borrower to the lender at the corporate office
or at such other addresses as may be specified in the schedules hereto and
shall deemed to have been paid on the date on which the amounts
thereunder are realized. The learned counsel also placed reliance on clause
14 of the Agreement which provides that the said Agreement shall be
governed by and construed in all respects with the Indian laws and the
parties hereto agree that any matter or issues arising thereunder or any
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 7 apl.1460.13
dispute thereunder shall at the option/discretion of the lender, be subject to
the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the city of Mumbai. The
learned counsel submits that even the demand promissory note clearly
show that the respondents had promised to pay to the petitioner at their
office situate at New Delhi or wherever else demanded. The learned
counsel submits that the petitioners issued a notice dated 8.8.2013 calling
upon the respondents to pay the amounts under various documents which
clearly indicates that the payments wereo be made at Mumbai and this
court has thus jurisdiction to try, and entertain this petition. It is submitted
that the respondents have not denied the averments made in para 28 of the
petition which provides as to how this court has exclusive jurisdiction to
try, entertain and dispose of this petition.
9. Ms.Joshi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in L& T Finance Limited vs
M/s Spotlight Tradecom Pvt Ltd in Arbitration Petition No.62 of 2013
delivered on 1.7.2013 in which after considering the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in case of A.B.C.LAMINART PVT.LTD vs
A.P.AGENCIES SALEM and other Judgments of this Court, it is held that
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 8 apl.1460.13
part of cause of action has arisen at Mumbai. The loan was sanctioned from
Mumbai, both the parties having agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction to
one of the Court having jurisdiction, i.e. Bombay this Court has the
jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the petition.
10. Ms.Joshi learned counsel also placed reliance on the Judgment of
this Court in the case of KONKOLA COPPER MINES (Plc) vs
STEWARTS AND LLOYDS OF INDIA LIMTED
ig and distinguished
the Judgment of this Court relied upon for the respondents. The learned
counsel also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in case of KONKOLA COPPER MINES supra delivered on
9.7.2013 in Appeal (Lodging) No.199 of 2013 in support of her
submissions that since venue of the arbitration was at Mumbai, this Court
has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of this petition.
11. The learned counsel invited my attention to the averments made in
the petition and in particular paras 13,17,18,19,20 and 23 in support of her
submissions that the petitioners have made out a case for attachment before
judgment in respect of the properties described at serial nos. 1 to 4 of
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 9 apl.1460.13
Exhibit G.
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents
furnished a copy of the reply dated 21.8.2013 alleged to have been sent to
the petitioners. Ms.Joshi learned counsel for the petitioners could not take
instructions in view of the respondents having tendered copy of the said
reply in Court after conclusion of the hearing. The learned counsel for the
respondents fairly conceded that based on the view taken by the division
bench of this Court in case of KONKOLA COPPER MINES supra this
court has the jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the present petition.
13. In view of the fact that the respondents have conceded the fact
that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the petition, I
need not deal with the issue of jurisdiction raised by the respondents in
detail. The records including the provisions of the agreement clerarly
indicates that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Loan was
sanctioned at Mumbai. Parties agreed to confer jurisdiction at courts at
Mumbai exclusively.
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 10
apl.1460.13
14. A perusal of the record clearly indicates that it is not the case of
the respondents that no default is committed by the respondents. Clause 8
of the loan agreement provides for event of default. Clause 9 provides for
consequences in the event of default committed by the respondents in
making payment of the loan instalments, interest or other moneys payable
within the stipulated time whether demanded or not. The petitioner is
entitled not only to terminate the loan agreement but, is entitled to recover
the monies from the respondents including the future instalments and
initiate legal action. Since the respondents have not denied the claim on
merits, the averments made in the petition are deemed to have been
admitted.
15. On the perusal of the record I am of the prima facie opinion that
the respondents have committed default in making repayment of the
instalments to the petitioners. A perusal of the affidavit in support of the
notice of motion it is clear that the respondents have not denied the liability
of the petitioner.
16. According to the petitioner the petitioner has to recover
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::
RNG 11
apl.1460.13
Rs.3,78,01,512/- with future interest thereon with effect from 8.8.2013. The
respondents have not disclosed their encumbered and/or unencumbered
assets though directed by the ad-interim order passed by this Court on
5.9.2013 so far. The petitioner has thus, made out a case for attachment
before Judgment as averred in the petition in respect of the properties
described at serial nos.1 to 4 of Exhibit G and has made out a case for
appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the current assets, movable
properties and equipments described in the Deed of hypothecation dated
19.11.2010.
17. Accordingly, I pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed as receiver in respect of the hypothecated assets described at Serial No. 5 of Exhibit G with a direction to the Court Receiver to appoint the respondents as agent of the Court Receiver in respect of the movable properties and equipments on usual terms and conditions and on payment of royalty.
(ii) In so far as current assets are concerned, the Court Receiver shall allow the respondents to carry on business using those current assets in the ordinary course of business.
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 ::: RNG 12apl.1460.13
(iii) Till the disposal of the arbitration proceedings and for a period of four weeks thereafter, there shall be interim injunction of this court from alienating or creating any third party rights in respect of the properties described at serial nos. 1 to 4 of exhibit G. Arbitration Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Notice of Motion is dismissed. No order as to costs.
ig R.D.DHANUKA, J
::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:07:14 :::