Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. Rahul Soorma And 2 ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.390 OF 2017 Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ...

Petitioner

Versus

Rahul Soorma & Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. Nilesh Gala i/b. Law Square for the Petitioner. None for Respondents.

CORAM

: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

DATED : 15 th December, 2017 P.C.:

1.

The above Petition is filed by the Petitioner under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reliefs as prayed against the Respondents. The Petition is served on the Respondents and an Affidavit proving service has been placed on record. However, none appear for the Respondents nor reply has been filed. The Petition is today taken up for final hearing.

2.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that by virtue of a Sanction Letter dated 30.1.2016, the Petitioner had sanctioned a loan of Rs.37,09,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Nine Thousand Only) in favour of the Respondents against mortgage of the property being Property No.V23, Second Floor with roof, Plot No.44, Block V, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi110032 more particularly described in "Exhibit D" to the Petition ("said mortgaged property"). The said Loan amount was repayable by the Respondents to the Petitioner with interest @ 12.25% p.a (variable) in 180

monthly instalments of Rs.45,113/- each.

3.

A Loan Agreement dated 30.1.2016 ("said Agreement"), was executed between the Petitioner as the Lender and the Respondents as the Borrowers. Clause 11.2 of the said Agreement provides for the events of default; Clause 11.3 provides for notice on happening of events of defaults and Clause 12.18 provides for Arbitration. The Respondents have also created a mortgage of the property described in "Exhibit D" to the Petition in favour of the Petitioner by depositing the title deeds and executing a Memorandum Recording creation of Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds dated 15.2.2016 in favour of the Petitioner. 4.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondents defaulted in the timely repayment of the said loan. It is also submitted that as on 4.5.2017 a sum of Rs.40,04,227/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Seven Only) is outstanding and payable by the Respondents to the Petitioner alongwith interest thereon @ 12.25% (variable) per annum and additional interest @ 2% per month on the overdue amount for the defaulted period till payment/ realisation as well as other expenses, costs, fees, charges, etc as per the Particulars of Claim annexed and marked "Exhibit F" to the Petition. Thus the Petitioner through its Advocates' Notice dated 22.10.2016 recalled the entire loan as per the terms of the said Agreement. Also, it is submitted that vide the said Notice, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in the said Agreement. There is no reply to the Notice dated 22.10.2016. 5.

In the present Petition, the Petitioner is interalia seeking an injunction against the Respondents from creating any third party rights in respect of

the mortgaged property and directions to the Respondents to disclose on oath the details of their personal moveable and immoveable unencumbered and encumbered assets/ properties and appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay as the Receiver of the mortgaged property.

6.

This court by order dated 14.9.2017 issued notice to the Respondents. The Respondents have neither filed their Reply nor are present before the Court. In absence of any defense or contest by the Respondents, the averments contained in the Petition have remained uncontroverted. I see no reason why the statements/submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner in the Petition should not be accepted. Section 9 empowers the court to pass interim measures of protection. 7.

As the Respondents have defaulted in repayment of the outstanding dues, it is just and necessary to safeguard the interests of the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner is over Rs.40 Lakhs and unless adequately protected, the Petitioner may suffer irreparable harm and injury. Balance of convenience also warrants the grant of reliefs. Hence, the following order is passed.

i.

The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed as Receiver in respect of the said mortgaged property described in "Exhibit D" to the Petition, with direction to take symbolic possession of the said mortgaged property and appoint the Respondents as their agents in respect of the said mortgaged property on usual terms, conditions and payment of royalty as may be fixed by the Court Receiver and on furnishing security having regard to the

terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement (Exhibit B to the Petition).

ii.

In the event of the Respondents failing to accept or refusing to accept the agency within two weeks from the date of such offer by the Court Receiver, the Court Receiver shall take forcible possession of the said mortgaged property with the help of the police assistance if required and without any further notice to the Respondents. Thereafter, it would be open to the Petitioner to apply to the court for further orders including sale of the said mortgaged property by private treaty.

iii.

The Respondents shall disclose on oath the details of their moveable and immoveable (un-encumbered and encumbered) assets/ properties.

iv.

Until the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay takes possession of the said mortgaged property, the Respondents, their agent/s, and/or any person/s claiming through or under them are restrained by an order of injunction from in any manner selling, transferring, disposing of, and/or alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of, or creating any right in respect of the said mortgaged property described in "Exhibit D". 1.

The Petitioner shall forthwith serve a copy of this order on the Respondents by hand delivery and also by Registered Post A. D. 2.

The Arbitration Petition is accordingly, disposed off. (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)