IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CITICORP INTERNATIONAL LTD – Decree Holder
Versus
SHIV-VANI OIL & GAS EXPLORATION – Judgment Debtor
EX. P. No. 251 of 2014 & CCP (O) No. 94 of 2015 & EA (OS) Nos. 518, 519, 810 of 2014
Decided On : 08-07-2016
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 39(4) - Rigs - Outside the jurisdiction of this Court - Execution, denied - Court would have no jurisdiction to execute a decree qua the rigs, which are outside this Courts jurisdiction - Rigs at serial nos. 39, 40 and 41 charged to the applicant are situated at Oman - Purpose of execution is realisation of money from the person or the property of the judgment debtor - When an Award made is executable as a decree and the execution sought is against property, the execution shall lie at a place where the property is situated - Rigs being outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the execution petition per-se with regard to the rigs of the applicants would not be maintainable - Decree holder could not have sought a direction - Petition would not be maintainable and the interim order need to be vacated.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 - Suits against corporation - Authority to sign - Scope of - Suits by or against a corporation - Pleading may be signed and verification behalf of the corporation, by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case - Affidavit filed by Dole - Dole is the Managing Director and CEO of the ICICI Bank UK PLC - Being the Principal Officer of the corporation, he is competent to sign and verify on behalf of the applicant, the application.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 4 R/w Section 151 - Execution - Subsidiary Rigs - Maintainability of - Rigs do not belong to the judgment debtor - Decree holder do not dispute this fact - Decree holder is resisting the applications on the ground that the judgment debtor being in possession of the rigs - A subsidiary company, even though a 100% subsidiary of the judgment debtor, still it is a separate entity in the eye of law - Plea of lifting of corporate veil is not sustainable - There is no charge on the rigs - Decree holder cannot seek an execution of the decree through the rigs belonging to the subsidiary company of the judgment debtor.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. By this order, I shall decide EA (OS) Nos. 700/2014, 526/2015, 864/2015, 195/2016, 142/2016 and 250/2016.
2. EA (OS) 700/2014 is filed by the judgment debtor namely Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. EA (OS) 526/2015 is filed by the ICICI Bank U.K. PLC; EA (OS) 864/2015 is filed by the Standard Chartered Bank acting in its capacity as a security trustee for and on behalf of 8 banks/financial institutions and EA (OS) Nos. 195/2016, 142/2016 and 250/2016 are filed by IL&FS Trust Company Ltd. the receiver.
EA (OS) No. 700/2014
3. This is an application filed by the judgment debtor for modification of order dated 28th July, 2014 to the extent of excluding the rigs owned by subsidiaries. It is averred in the application and contended by Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment debtor that the order dated 28th July, 2014 inter-alia restraining the judgment debtor from selling the rigs owned by the subsidiaries of the judgment debtor could not have been passed in these execution proceedings against the judgment debtor.
4. He states that the subsidiary companies are separate legal entities, different from the judgment debtor/applicant and the decree holder cannot in any manner seek restraint order against selling of the assets of the subsidiary companies as the alleged claim of decree holder is against the judgment debtor and not against its subsidiaries and the order dated 28th July, 2014 is causing hardship to the subsidiary companies which are not privy to the Execution Petition against the judgment debtor. He states, the decree holder has mislead this Court for obtaining the said order by giving false impression to this Court in Para 11 of the EA (OS) No.519/2014 that the rigs mentioned in Annexure E are the rigs owned by the judgment debtor, where as in Annexure E, the decree holder has included rigs owned by the subsidiaries also, which is untenable.
EA (OS) No. 526/2015
5. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by ICICI Bank U.K. PLC, which is a Company registered in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. It is the contention of Mr. P.Chidambaram and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Sr. Counsels appearing for the applicant that the applicant Company entered into a facility agreement dated 12th July, 2010 with the Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Company LLC (SVOGCL), a limited liability Company incorporated under the laws of Sultanate of Oman and a subsidiary of the judgment debtor for providing credit facilities to the tune of USD 45,000,000. On entering the facility agreement, the applicant first disbursed on 13th July, 2010 an amount of USD 9,000,000 and later USD 31,000,000 on 23rd August, 2010. The applicant entered into a commercial mortgage with SVOGCL on 21st September, 2011 whereby SVOGCL mortgaged the following assets by way of first and exclusive charge in favour of the applicant to secure the repayment of the aforesaid loans. Three (3) units of ZJ 30 Truck mounted 900 HP land rigs each with a telescope mast of 1700 KN maximum hook load capacity owned and operated by the mortgagor as described further below:-
Name
Hoist 20
Hoist 21
Hoist 35
Registration Number
7113 RK
7248 RK
7098 RK
Model Number
SJX5700TZJ30
SJX5700TZJ30
SJX5700TZJ30
Serial Number
031235
031234
040444
VIN
LA9E5VCH13SJZ035
LA9E5VCHX30SJZ034
LA9E5VCH040SJZ044
Year of Build
2004
2004
2004
6. According to them, the SVOGCL thereafter had committed default in making the payments to the applicant herein for the credit facilities availed by it. Applicant served default notices on SVOGCL on 19th July, 2013, 17th January, 2014, 16th April, 2014, 9th January, 2015 and 17th April, 2015. However, despite notices, SVOGCL failed to make the payments to
United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. 1996 (6) SCC 660
Infrastructure Healing and Financial Services Ltd vs. BPL Ltd. 2015 (3) SCC 363
SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd vs. Chandmari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (14) SCC 66
M.V. Al Quamar vs. Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd. & Ors. 2000 (8) SCC 278
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.