USHA MEHRA
GE CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
DEE PHARMA LIMITED – Respondent
( 1 ) THE short point for consideration is whether the petitioner can ask for appointment of a Receiver regarding the property of a Company against which reference has been registered by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR ).
( 2 ) THE petitioner has based its claim for the appointment of a Receiver primarily on the ground that respondent Company approached the petitioner to help it financially in obtaining plant and machinery on lease basis. Respondent Company represented itself to be financially sound and assured the petitioner that it would be able to meet its commitments. It pursuaded the petitioner to agree to get on lease the plant and machinery which the respondent wanted to purchase. However, subsequently it was agreed between the parties that the plant and machinery would be hired by the petitioner for the respondent. In this regard Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the parties. Term of the agreement indicated the owner of the plant and machinery, respondent company as the Hirer and the Managing Director of the respondent company as the guarantor. This Hire Purchase Agreement was executed on 15th April,1996. The pe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.