Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. M/S. Netwings Technologies Pvt Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1118678
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnJan-17-2014
JudgeBANERJEE
AppellantSrei Equipment Finance Limited
RespondentM/S. Netwings Technologies Pvt Ltd.
Excerpt:
1 order sheet ga no.59 of 2014 apot no.592 of 2013 ap no.1000 of 2013 in the high court at calcutta civil appellate jurisdiction original side srei equipment finance limited versus m/s.netwings technologies pvt ltd.before: the hon'ble justice banerjee the hon'ble justice arijit banerjee date : 17th january, 2014. appearance: mr.utpal bose, mr.sounak banerjee and ms.ruby jaiswal, ld. advocates for the appellant. the financial court support : this given litigation by the would relate appellant to to the respondent in exchange of hypothecation of assets which are computers and other related items.the respondent defaulted in making payment of instalments as agreed. in this backdrop, the learned judge appointed a receiver to make inventory and pass order of injunction restraining the respondent from using the hypothecated equipment. the receiver went to take possession. however, from the report we find, she was given a cold reception. at this juncture the learned judge should not have disposed of the application under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, without passing any order directing the receiver to take possession. hence this appeal. mr.utpal bose, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would inform this court, service was attempted but postal authority returned the undelivered packet with the remark “door locked, intimation left”, as we find from the affidavit of service filed in court. we direct the receiver to take possession of the assets forthwith. we are told, a sum of rs.79 lac is still due and payable. the receiver would be at liberty to allow the respondent to use the equipment provided the respondent would pay rs.40 lakhs in one go by 30th january, 2014 and continue to make payment of rs.5 lakhs per month to be paid on 30th day of each succeeding month until a sum of rs.40 lac is paid off. in default of payment of any of the aforesaid sums.the receiver would remove the equipment to a safe place to be provided by the appellant and would put the same for sale in public auction subject to the confirmation by the learned single judge. the application is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. mr.bose submits that the appellant has come to know, the rs.24,26,591/- respondent from iti is limited. going let to receive the receiver collect the said sum or any other sum payable to the respondent from iti limited. in view of the order as above, we do not find any scope to keep this appeal pending. the appeal is also disposed of without any order as to costs. (banerjee, j.) (arijit banerjee, j.) dg/
Judgment:

1 ORDER

SHEET GA No.59 of 2014 APOT No.592 of 2013 AP No.1000 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus M/S.NETWINGS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 17th January, 2014.

Appearance: Mr.Utpal Bose, Mr.Sounak Banerjee and Ms.Ruby Jaiswal, ld.

Advocates For the appellant.

The financial Court support : This given litigation by the would relate appellant to to the respondent in exchange of hypothecation of assets which are computers and other related iteMs.The respondent defaulted in making payment of instalments as agreed.

In this backdrop, the learned Judge appointed a Receiver to make inventory and pass order of injunction restraining the respondent from using the hypothecated equipment.

The Receiver went to take possession.

However, from the report we find, she was given a cold reception.

At this juncture the learned Judge should not have disposed of the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without passing any order directing the Receiver to take possession.

Hence this appeal.

Mr.Utpal Bose, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would inform this Court, service was attempted but postal authority returned the undelivered packet with the remark “door locked, intimation left”, as we find from the affidavit of service filed in Court.

We direct the Receiver to take possession of the assets forthwith.

We are told, a sum of Rs.79 lac is still due and payable.

The Receiver would be at liberty to allow the respondent to use the equipment provided the respondent would pay Rs.40 lakhs in one go by 30th January, 2014 and continue to make payment of Rs.5 lakhs per month to be paid on 30th day of each succeeding month until a sum of Rs.40 lac is paid off.

In default of payment of any of the aforesaid suMs.the Receiver would remove the equipment to a safe place to be provided by the appellant and would put the same for sale in public auction subject to the confirmation by the learned Single Judge.

The application is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

Mr.Bose submits that the appellant has come to know, the Rs.24,26,591/- respondent from ITI is Limited.

going Let to receive the Receiver collect the said sum or any other sum payable to the respondent from ITI Limited.

In view of the order as above, we do not find any scope to keep this appeal pending.

The appeal is also disposed of without any order as to costs.

(BANERJEE, J.) (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) dg/