Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. When this matter had come up on 13th September, 2021, Mr. Dastoor, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents requested for three weeks time to file an affidavit-in-reply.

CARBPL 19381-21.doc In the said order a statement was recorded on behalf of the Respondents that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, until further orders, the Respondents shall not create any third party rights and/or interest in relation to the properties mortgaged/secured with the Petitioner. Accordingly, time was granted to file their reply. That is how the matter has come up today when the Petitioner has pressed for the appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of the property being 'Karvy Millenium', a plot of land and building at Plot No. 31/P, Sy No. 115/22 & 115/25 Financial District, Nanakramguda Village, RR district, Hyderabad, belonging to Respondent No.2 (for short the "mortgaged property"). The mortgaged property is more particularly described at Exhibit "F" to the Petition.

3. The Petitioner is a Non-Banking Finance Company and is a part of the Aditya Birla Group. The Petitioner offers end to end lending, financing and wealth management solutions to a diverse clientele. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are Companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and are sister/related concerns and are all part of the Karvy Group of Companies. Respondent No.4 is a Director, in both Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and is also the Chairman of Respondent No.1. It is the case of the Petitioner that there is a commonality of interest and/or shareholding and/or control between the Respondents and they CARBPL 19381-21.doc form part of one economic unit and/or group.

12. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Dhond, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the facts in the present matter are really undisputed. He submitted that admittedly, the Respondents have availed of a Term Loan from the Petitioner to the extent of Rs. 100 Crores. He submitted that it is also not in dispute that the Respondents have committed various breaches of the terms and conditions of the sanction letters read with the Term Loan Agreement. It is in these circumstances, that the Petitioner was constrained to recall the entire loan amount as contemplated under clause 13.3 of the Term Loan Agreement. Mr. Dhond submitted that far from disputing the claim of the Petitioner, the Respondents in their letter dated 28th June 2021, have in fact accepted that a sum of Rs.98,61,96,107/- is due and payable by the Respondents to the Petitioner and that the same would be paid by July 2021. In this regard, Mr. Dhond placed heavy reliance on paragraph 1(g) and paragraph 4 of the letter dated 28th June 2021. He submitted that in these circumstances, this was a fit case where interim measures of protection ought to be granted in favour of the Petitioner to secure its mortgaged property. Mr. Dhond also brought to my attention that proceedings under the Prevention of Money CARBPL 19381-21.doc Laundering Act, 2002 have also been initiated against Respondent No. 2 (who has mortgaged its property to the Petitioner) and the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has passed orders in respect of the shares of the Karvy Group held directly and/or indirectly by the Chairman and the Managing Director of Respondent No.2 and other persons as more particularly set out therein. In this regard Mr. Dhond brought to my attention a press release that was published by the Enforcement Directorate on 25th September 2021. Mr. Dhond, therefore, submitted that this is yet another fact that the Court ought to take into consideration whilst granting interim measure of protection in favour of the Petitioner, at least in relation to the mortgaged property. For all these reasons, Mr. Dhond submitted that this court may appoint a Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to take charge and possession of the mortgaged property more particularly described at Exhibit "F" to the Petition.