9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interim measures u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Admissibility of unstamped documents. 3. Territorial jurisdiction. 4. Appointment of Court Receiver. Summary: Interim Measures u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The petitioner sought interim measures u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to the respondent's default in loan repayment. The petitioner issued a demand cum termination notice and invoked the arbitration agreement, appointing an arbitrator. The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to respond to the demand notice and the absence of an affidavit in reply indicated an admission of the petition's averments. Admissibility of Unstamped Documents: The respondents contended that the loan cum hypothecation agreement and deed of guarantee were insufficiently stamped as per the Maharashtra Stamp Act, rendering them inadmissible in evidence. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner countered that the documents were executed in Goa, where the applicable stamp duty was paid, and any deficit could be addressed upon bringing the documents to Mumbai. The court held that since the documents were executed outside Maharashtra and the stamp duty was paid according to the rates prevailing in Goa, the documents could be relied upon in proceedings u/s 9. Territorial Jurisdiction: The respondents argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the agreements were executed in Goa, and the parties resided there. The petitioner contended that part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, where the loan was sanctioned and disbursed, and the repayment was to be made at the petitioner's corporate office in Mumbai. The court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai. Appointment of Court Receiver: The petitioner sought the appointment of a Court Receiver to secure the claim, arguing that the respondents had defaulted on repayments and the whereabouts and condition of the hypothecated assets were unknown. The respondents opposed, citing the Madras High Court judgment in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty, which outlined principles for appointing receivers. The court, finding that the respondents had not replied to the demand notice or filed an affidavit in reply, deemed the petition's averments admitted. The court appointed the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, with directions to appoint the respondent as an agent on usual terms or take forcible possession if the respondent refused. Order: (a) Court Receiver appointed for the equipment described in Ex. F to the petition. (b) Respondent to act as an agent or Court Receiver to take possession. (c) Ad-interim injunction granted. (d) Petitioner to approach Court Receiver's office within three weeks. (e) Respondent to disclose equipment location within three weeks. Petition disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
