Indusind Bank Ltd v. Kgk Constructions

C.SARAVANAN, J.

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent has paid the entire due of Rs.18,06,600/- as on 18.02.2024. It is submitted that despite categorical order dated 22.12.2023 of this Court, the applicant is not releasing the vehicle.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that only a sum of Rs.35,000/- is still due inrespect of the loan covered by Arb.Appln.No.664 of 2023.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand submit that apart from the above three other construction equipments which were ordered to be seized on the same day vide order in Arb.Appln.Nos.665 to 667 of 2023, which are not traceable.

4. It is submitted that the respondent is not co-operating with the applicant. Hence, submits that the vehicle should not be ordered to be released.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that an amount of Rs.35,000/- is reported by due as per the statement given today by the learned counsel for the applicant, which will be paid by the end of the day.

6. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondent further submit that 50% of the amount due inrespect of construction equipments covered by Arb.Appln.Nos.665 to 667 of 2023 will be paid in due course.

7. I therefore direct the Registry to list Arb.Appln.No.664 of 2023 along with Arb.Appln.Nos.665 to 667 of 2023 on 11.03.2024, to facilitate the respondent (i) to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- which is reportedly due in respect of the construction equipments covered by Arb.Appln.No.664 of 2023 and (ii) to report compliance of payment of 50% of the amount in Arb.Appln.Nos.665 to 667 of 2023.

04.03.2024 jas

C.SARAVANAN, J.

jas 04.03.2024