Calcutta High Court
Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Lozalin Rout & Anr on 13 January, 2020
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
OD-49
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
A.P. No. 197 of 2019
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
Versus
LOZALIN ROUT & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
Date : 13th January, 2020
Appearance:
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Sannoyee Chakraborty, Adv.
...for the petitioner
The Court: This application under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Copies of the application were forwarded to the
respondents but they could not be found at their respective
addresses. Therefore, on December 5, 2019 this Court directed the petitioner to publish the notice of this application in an English newspaper as well as in a newspaper of local vernacular widely circulated at Rourkella, in the State of Odisha. The petitioner has published the notice in the newspapers but the respondents remain unrepresented. Under these circumstances, the application is taken up for hearing in the absence of the respondents.
The petitioner claims that in terms of an agreement dated October 15, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2 said agreement"), the respondent no. 1 obtained a financial accommodation for acquiring the asset mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application which remains hypothecated with the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 as a guarantor is a party to the said agreement which also contains an arbitration agreement. The respondent is alleged to have committed default in making payment of the monthly installment and as such as on February 13, 2019 a sum of Rs.20,43,214.26/- remained outstanding by the respondents to the petitioner. In spite of repeated requests the respondents failed to pay the outstanding dues of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner terminated the said agreement and filed the present application for taking possession of the hypothecated asset presently lying at Sundargarh, in the State of Odisha.
Considering the materials on record I find that the petitioner has substantiated a ground for interim protection. Accordingly, Mrs. Mithu Singha Mahapatra, Advocate of Bar Association (Room no.16) is appointed as a Receiver to take possession of the hypothecated asset mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application presently lying at Sundargarh, in the State of Odisha.
The petitioner shall pay an initial remuneration of 2000 GMs. to the Receiver and shall also bear the travelling expenses of the Receiver. The petitioner shall 3 provide the Receiver with a befitting accommodation at the relevant place.
Needless to mention that a competent officer of the petitioner shall all along accompany the Receiver in the state of Odisha.
If necessary, the Receiver shall approach the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district for obtaining police assistance to implement this order. If the petitioner deposits the requisite fees with the concerned authorities, the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district shall render necessary police assistance to the Receiver to take actual physical possession of the hypothecated asset from the respondents.
The matter is made returnable on 3rd February, 2020. The Receiver shall file her report on the next date of hearing.
All parties, including the Receiver and the concerned police authorities shall act on the copy of the certified website copy of this order.
(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) TO