IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ambience Projects And Infrastructure Private Limited & Ors - Respondent
Original Miscellaneous Petition (I) (Comm) No. 29 of 2021
Decided On : 23-03-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction invoked under arbitration act (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. default allegations and loan agreements (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. implications of nclat and supreme court ruling (Para 12 , 15) |
| 4. arguments presented by parties (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. judicial observations on default and relief (Para 21 , 22 , 35) |
| 6. no prioritization of debts in private parties (Para 39 , 48 , 53) |
| 7. conclusion on interim relief rejected (Para 56 , 59) |
JUDGMENT
C.Hari Shankar, J. - The petitioner Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd ("IHFL") has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"). The prayer clause in the petition reads thus:
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the grounds pleaded above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) direct the Respondent Nos. 1-11 to deposit the total outstanding amount of INR 14,38,44,59,993 (Indian Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Eight Crores Forty Four Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Three only) as of January 21, 2021, along with pending TDS of INR 16,58,51,625 (Indian Rupees Sixteen Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Six Hundredand Twenty Five Only) due and payable under eighteen loan agreements entered into with the Petitioner (collectively, "Loan Agreements") with the Registrar of this Hon'ble Court;
b) alternatively, an injunction against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 12- 26 from selling, transferring, alienating, creating any third-party rights or interests in or dealing with the properties furnished as security to the Petitioner for securing the loans aggregating to INR 1327,36,92,800 (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Seven Crore Thirty Six Lakh Ninety Two Thousand and Eight Hundred Only), being the disbursed amounts under the Loan Agreements, pending conclusion of the arbitration proceedings; and
c) an injunction restraining the Respondent No. 1 from making any payment to any third party or inter se transferring any funds and assets between its group I associate companies, and/or providing any financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to meet the obligations of any of the Respondent No. 1 s promoters, directors, personal or corporate guarantors, pending conclusion of the arbitration proceedings;
d) an injunction restraining the Respondent No. 1 from making any payment to any third party or inter se transferring any funds andassets between its group/associate companies, and/or providing any financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to meet the obligations of any of the Respondent No. 1 s group/associate companies (including but not limited to Ambience Private Limited) or their promoters, directors or personal I corporate guarantors, pending conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.
e) grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (a)- (d);
f) award reasonable costs of this petition; and/or
g) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appear for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appears for the respondents. Mr. Sethi opposes issuance of notice in the petition, whereas Mr. Nayar and Mr. Maninder Singh seek issuance of notice and grant of ad interim relief as sought in prayer (e) in the petition, in terms of prayers (c) and (d) thereof. Arguments were limited, therefore, to this aspect.
3. I am not examining, therefore, whether, prima facie, any case for directing deposit of any amount, by any of the respondents, as prayed in prayer (a) in the petition, is made out or not. The arguments before me were restricted to the prayer to injunct, ad interim and pending decision of the Section 9 petition, Respondent No. 1 Ambience Projects & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ("APIPL") fro
Firm Ashok Traders vs. Gurmukh Das Saluja
Olex Facas Pvt Ltd vs. Skoda Export Co. Ltd
Raman Tech & Process Engineering Co. vs. Solanki Traders
Ramniklal N. Bhutta vs. State of Maharashtra
Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd
S. Nazeer Ahmed vs. State Bank of Mysore
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs. State of Bihar
BMW India Pvt Ltd vs. Libra Automotives Pvt Ltd
Adhunik Steels vs. Orissa Manganese & Minerals (P) Ltd
Interim relief under Section 9 requires showing real apprehension of irreparable loss; mere speculation does not justify injunctions against debtor actions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court applied the principles of strong prima facie case and weighing the balance of convenience in favor of the respondent company in gran....
Section 9 jurisdiction limited to arbitration agreement parties for subject-matter preservation; ends upon tribunal constitution unless Section 17 inefficacious; non-signatory third parties cannot in....
Expression “entertain” means to consider by application of mind to the issues raised. The Court entertains a case when it takes a matter up for consideration. The process of consideration could conti....
Once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, Section 9 of the Arbitration Act prohibits further applications for interim relief unless the party shows that the remedy under Section 17 is ineffective.
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.