Skip to content


Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. Shree Sudama Krishn - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kolkata High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

Srei Equipment Finance Limited

Respondent

Shree Sudama Krishn

Excerpt:


.....accepting the offer of rs.22 lakh received for the asset which cost about rs.47 lakh in 2012. on the previous petition under section 9 of the 1996 act, an order was passed by the appellate court on september 9, 2013 requiring possession to be taken of the asset. the respondent was permitted to ward off the possession being taken over by the receiver upon payment; but the respondent chose not to make any payment. the sale of the excavator is confirmed in favour of ajay bir singh of pathankot subject to the entire consideration being paid by way of demand draft or banker’s cheque or like instrument, not being a personal cheque, made out in favour of the petitioner within a fortnight from date. the petitioner will retain the money in a separate interest bearing account without exercising any lien over the account or encumbering the same in any manner whatsoever till such time that appropriate orders are passed in execution proceedings upon an award being obtained by the petitioner. the receiver need not travel to make over possession of the excavator to the purchaser but will authorise any officer of the finance company to do so. the receiver will ensure that the sale.....

Judgment:


AP No.92 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED -VersusSHREE SUDAMA KRISHN Appearance: Ms.Sneha Sharma, Adv...for the petitioner.

BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : February 11, 2014.

The Court : Since the respondent is not represented despite service, this second petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be disposed of by accepting the offer of Rs.22 lakh received for the asset which cost about Rs.47 lakh in 2012.

On the previous petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, an order was passed by the appellate Court on September 9, 2013 requiring possession to be taken of the asset.

The respondent was permitted to ward off the possession being taken over by the receiver upon payment; but the respondent chose not to make any payment.

The sale of the excavator is confirmed in favour of Ajay Bir Singh of Pathankot subject to the entire consideration being paid by way of demand draft or banker’s cheque or like instrument, not being a personal cheque, made out in favour of the petitioner within a fortnight from date.

The petitioner will retain the money in a separate interest bearing account without exercising any lien over the account or encumbering the same in any manner whatsoever till such time that appropriate orders are passed in execution proceedings upon an award being obtained by the petitioner.

The receiver need not travel to make over possession of the excavator to the purchaser but will authorise any officer of the finance company to do so.

The receiver will ensure that the sale certificate is made over to the purchaser after the entire consideration is received and the relevant instrument is encashed.

The receiver will thereafter stand discharged without being required to file any accounts upon being paid his final remuneration of 1000 GM by the petitioner which the petitioner will be entitled to claim in the pending arbitral reference.

A.P.No.92 of 2014 is allowed as above without any order as to costs.

Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //