SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Bom) 108

A.M.KHANWILKAR
Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:-By this chamber summons, the respondents pray for declaration that the rights of the claimants are governed by the sanctioned scheme dated 30th October, 2002 read with order dated 16th January, 2003 and are not entitled to recover any further amounts from the respondents under consent terms dated 20th January, 2000 and 31st July, 2000. The respondents further pray that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, appointed as Receiver in the award/arbitration proceedings and execution proceedings be discharged, with directions to hand over formal possession of the hypothecated equipments back to the respondents.

2. The claimants had extended loan facility to the respondents, in respect of which loan agreement dated October 17, 1994, was executed between the parties. Besides the loan agreement, memorandum of hypothecation of equipments, belonging to the respondents, was also executed. As dispute arose between the parties, the matter was referred to sole arbitrator, who, in turn, passed Arbitral Award on 21st January, 2000 as per the consent terms signed by the parties. The claimants had filed Arbitration Petition No. 359 of 1999, in which Court Receiver was




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top