Calcutta High Court
Tata Capital Limited vs Sahban Sadri And Anr on 21 April, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OCD-37
AP-COM/162/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISON
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED
VS
SAHBAN SADRI AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date : 21st April, 2025.
Appearance:
Ms. Arunima Lala, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv.
. . .for the petitioner.
The Court: Paper publication in the Sanmarg in Hindi and The Telegraph
in English have been made.
Despite such substituted service, none appears on behalf of the
respondents.
The Court proceeds in the absence of the respondents.
The petitioner is a non-banking company within the meaning and scope of
the Companies Act, 2013, and inter alia carries on business in offering diverse
loans and credit facilities to the prospective borrowers under various loan
agreements.
Financial assistance was given to the respondent for purchasing a
commercial vehicle being SANY SH500 PILING RIG DIAPHRAG, bearing Engine
No. 6UZ1545437, Chassis No. 0F5110756P3L58001RA along with all the
accessories. Accordingly, a loan cum hypothecation agreement was entered into
between the parties on May 24, 2024.
2
Apart from the commercial vehicle, two other vehicles were also
hypothecated as collateral security. A sum of Rs.4,94,31,534 was extended as
loan. The loan was to be repaid in 59 instalments. According to the petitioner,
out of the 59 instalments only three instalments had been paid. Thereafter, the
payments stopped. The loan account was classified as a non-performing asset
and a loan recall notice was issued on November 11, 2024. The agreement was
terminated.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that attempts were made to take
possession of the commercial vehicle being SANY SH500 PILING RIG DIAPHRAG
bearing Engine No. 6UZ1545437, Chassis No. 0F5110756P3L58001RA, but the
same was not traceable. The petitioner apprehends that the said vehicle has
either been disposed of or alienated or removed to a location to prevent the lender
from resuming the vehicle, although the contract permitted such resumption.
According to the petitioner, more than Rs. 4 crores are due and payable.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that protection should
be given to the petitioner so that the situation does not become irreversible and
the vehicles which have been mortgaged are not further alienated or disposed of.
There is a genuine apprehension that the respondents may deprive the right of
the lender to recover the money by sale of the secured assets. Moreover, in the
event an award is passed in favour of the petitioner in the arbitration proceeding,
the same may become a paper decree.
Under such circumstances, there shall be an interim order injuncting the
respondents from alienating, disposing and/or creating any third party interest
3
or changing the nature and character of the assets which have been described in
paragraph 6 of the application.
The description of the vehicles are quoted below:
“a. Hyundai R 210 bearing Engine No. 84903868 and Chassis No.
N633D03589.
b. Hyundai R 210 bearing Engine No. 84904609 and Chassis No.
N633D03587.”
These vehicles were secured as collateral along with the main commercial
vehicle which was purchased from the loan amount.
A, prima facie, case has been made out with regard to the jurisdiction of
this Court. The place of arbitration as Kolkata and jurisdiction of Courts at
Kolkata were agreed upon by the parties and such fact is recorded at Column
13(a) and 13(b) of the agreement.
Further service of notice this order, and upon the respondents. Affidavit of
service to be filed on the next date. Let this matter appear on 19 th May, 2025.
If the respondents do not appear, the prayer for appointment of the
Receiver shall be considered.
This interim order shall continue for a period of two months and the
petitioner shall take steps for appointment of a learned Arbitrator.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
sp/
[ad_1]
Source link