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

2021 Supreme(Del) 2180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Iifl Finance Limited - Appellant
Versus
Praful Satra & Anr. - Respondents
O.M.P. (I) (Comm) No. 370 of 2020
Decided On : 24-05-2021

Advocates appeared:
Anupam Lal Das, Advocate, Raunak Dhillon, Advocate, Aditya Marwah, Advocate, Isha Malik, Advocate, Anirudh Singh, Advocate, Niharika Shukla, Advocate, Saket Sikri, Advocate, Malak Bhatt, Advocate, Devanshi Singh, Advocate, Rajat Bector, Advocate

The court clarified the rights and restrictions related to the mortgaged property and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Exemption - I.A. 6422/2021 - The application for exemption from filing attested/ affirmed affidavit(s) is allowed, subject to filing the exempted documents within two weeks from the lifting of lockdown restrictions - O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 370/2020 & I.A. 5843/2021 - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petition seeks directions for depositing outstanding amount, disclosure of assets/properties, and restraint from selling, transferring, or creating third-party interest - The court clarified that the mortgaged property cannot be sold as it is subject to a mortgage with UBI and the title deeds are deposited with the bank. The court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and directed the respondents to disclose their list of assets.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought directions for depositing outstanding amount, disclosure of assets/properties, and restraint from selling, transferring, or creating third-party interest. Respondent No. 1 sought permission to sell a mortgaged property to pay outstanding dues to UBI. The court clarified that the mortgaged property cannot be sold as it is subject to a mortgage with UBI and the title deeds are deposited with the bank. The court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and directed the respondents to disclose their list of assets.

Finding of the Court:

The relief sought by Respondent No. 1 to sell the mortgaged property cannot be granted. The court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and directed the respondents to disclose their list of assets.

Issues: The main issue was whether the mortgaged property could be sold by Respondent No. 1 to pay outstanding dues to UBI.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the mortgaged property cannot be sold as it is subject to a mortgage with UBI and the title deeds are deposited with the bank. The court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and directed the respondents to disclose their list of assets.

Final Decision: The relief sought by Respondent No. 1 to sell the mortgaged property was not granted. The court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and directed the respondents to disclose their list of assets.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - I.A. 6422/2021 (for exemption from filing attested/ signed/ affirmed affidavits)

1. The present application on behalf of the Petitioner seeks exemption from filing attested/ affirmed affidavit(s).

2. The application is allowed, subject to the Petitioner filing the exempted documents within two weeks from the day the lockdown restrictions imposed by the Government of NCT of Delhi are lifted and the facility of attestation is resumed.

3. The application stands disposed of.

    O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 370/2020 & I.A. 5843/2021 (for directions on behalf of the R-1 - Mr. Praful Satra under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908)

    4. The present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] seeks reliefs in the nature of directions to the Respondents to deposit the outstanding amount due and payable as on 7th October, 2020; disclose on affidavit the details of the assets/properties; order of restraint from selling, transferring, alienating, relinquishing or creating any third party interest in respect of the assets/properties etc.

    5. Briefly stated, the facts as disclosed in the petition leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows: -

      5.1 The Petitioner sanctioned term loan of Rs. 65 Crores to Satra Property Developers Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'SPDPL'] under a Loan-cum-Mortgage Agreement dated 4th February, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Loan Agreement'] read with a sanctioned letter dated 24th December, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Sanction Letter'];

        5.2 Respondent No. 1 - Mr. Praful Satra and Respondent No. 2 - Mrs. Minaxi Satra executed deeds of Personal Guarantees dated 30th December, 2015 irrevocably and unconditionally, jointly and severally, securing the obligations of SPDPL under the Loan Agreement dated 4th February, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Deed']. The Deed contains the Arbitration Agreement in Clause 24 that is reproduced as under: -

          "In the event of any dispute or difference arising under this Deed or relating hereto, such dispute or difference shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory reenactment or modification thereof for the time being in force. All arbitration proceedings shall take place at Delhi. The language used in the arbitral proceedings shall be in English. The Arbitral Tribunal shall be comprised of sole arbitrator appointed by the Lender. The award of such sole arbitrator shall be final and binding. Any dispute remaining unresolved relating to this Agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of Courts at Delhi."

            5.3 SPDPL failed to perform its obligations under the Loan Agreement and the Petitioner was compelled to issue a letter dated 21st October, 2020 to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invoking Personal Guarantee [hereinafter referred to as the 'PG Invocation Notice'], to forthwith, jointly and/or severally, pay the entire outstanding amounts due under the Loan Agreement and the amendment agreement dated 9th September, 2019.

              5.4 By virtue of the order dated 10th August, 2020, SPDPL is presently under corporate insolvency resolution process before the National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai.

              6. The Petitioner has approached this Court apprehending that in order to defeat their claim, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through their family members, associates, affiliates and/or other entities of 'Satra Group', are likely to clandestinely and/or in collusion with each other take steps to dispose of/ illegally transfer their assets including those, over which, the Petitioner has a security interest.

              7. On 20th November, 2020, when this petition was taken up for hearing, Mr. Saket Sikri, learned counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the Respondents and on instructions stated that his clients undertake not to create

                          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 Back to top