9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court in light of pending proceedings before AAIFR. 2. Interpretation of the nature of the agreement - Hire Purchase Agreement or loan agreement. 3. Ownership of the plant and machinery in dispute. 4. Applicability of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. 5. Receiver's possession and restrictions on defendant's dealings with the property. Jurisdiction of the Court: The defendant sought to halt the proceedings in the court due to a pending appeal before the AAIFR. The defendant argued that no action should be taken in the court until the AAIFR matter is resolved. The plaintiff, however, contended that the court had jurisdiction based on the nature of the agreement and the ownership dispute. The court acknowledged the pending appeal but decided that the issue of ownership needed to be resolved during the trial. Nature of the Agreement: The crux of the dispute revolved around whether the agreement in question was a Hire Purchase Agreement or merely a loan agreement. The defendant argued that the agreement was solely for obtaining a loan, while the plaintiff highlighted clauses indicating an option to purchase and the retention of ownership until full payment. The court refrained from making a definitive ruling on the agreement's nature at the interlocutory stage, emphasizing that this determination should be made during the trial. Ownership Dispute: The disagreement over the ownership of the plant and machinery was central to the case. The plaintiff asserted ownership based on clauses in the agreement and payment details, while the defendant claimed ownership as the purchaser. The court noted the ownership dispute but refrained from making a final determination, emphasizing that ownership would be decided during the trial. Applicability of Section 22 of SICA: The court considered the application of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. It concluded that the defendant could benefit from Section 22, modifying the order to allow the Receiver to retain symbolic possession only. The court also issued an order restricting the defendant from dealing with the plant and machinery until the suit's resolution. Receiver's Possession and Restrictions: The court directed the Receiver to maintain symbolic possession and imposed restrictions on the defendant from alienating or disposing of the plant and machinery. These measures were put in place to safeguard the disputed property until the suit reached a final resolution. The court disposed of the application based on the outlined terms, emphasizing the need for a trial to address the complex issues at hand.
|
