Supreme Court
Honble H.K. SEMA, J. Honble R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
Indian Oil Corporation (M/s.) - Appellant
Versus
NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 834 of 2002
Decided On : July 20, 2006
(2). The appellant (Indian Oil Corporation, for short IOC) entered into two contracts, one with the first respondent (NEPC India Ltd.) and the other with its sister company Skyline NEPC Limited (Skyline for short) agreeing to supply to them aviation turbine fuel and aviation lubricants (together referred to as aircraft fuel). According to the appellant, in respect of the aircraft fuel supplied under the said contracts, the first respondent became due in a sum of Rs. 5,28,23,501.90 and Skyline became due in a sum of Rs. 13,12,76,421.25 as on 29.4.1997.
(3). The first respondent hypothecated its two Fokker F27-500 Aircrafts, bearing Registration No. VT-NEJ (12684) and VT-NEK (10687) to the appellant under Deed of Hypothecation dated 1.5.1997, to secure the outstanding amounts. Clause (2) of the said Deed provided that the two aircrafts with all parts and accessories stood hypothecated to IOC by way of charge and as security for payment of the amounts due, with effect from the date of hypothecation. Clause (3) read with the schedule for payment of the amount due. Under clause (6), NEPC India declared that it would not assign, sell, pledge, charge, underlet or otherwise encumber or part with the possession, custody or beneficial interest in respect of the two aircrafts without the previous written consent of IOC. It also undertook not to do any act which may diminish the value of the hypothecated property without clearing the entire outstanding amount. Clause (9) provided that if NEPC India failed to pay any of the instalments with interest within the stipulated time, or if any undertaking or assurance given by NEPC India was found to be false, IOC shall have the "right to take possession of the hypothecated property" and sell the same by public auction or by private contract and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the outstanding dues without recourse to court of law. Clause 12 confirmed that NEPC India had handed over the title deeds relating to the aircraft to IOC, and agreed to receive them back only after paying the amounts due. It is stated that Skyline also hypothecated its aircraft (VT-ECP) under a separate Hypothecation Deed dated 14.5.1997. It is further stated that a tripartite agreement dated 6.5.1997 was entered among IOC, NEPC India and Skyline setting out the mode of payment of the dues and recovery in the event of default.
(4). As NEPC India failed to pay the first two instalments as per schedule, IOC stopped supply of aircraft fuel on 3.6.1997. However, subsequently, under a fresh agreement dated 20.9.1997, a revised payment schedule was agreed and IOC agreed to recommence supply of aircraft fuel on cash and carry basis. Even this arrangement came to an end as the instalments were not paid.
(5). Apprehending that NEPC India may remove the hypothecated aircraft (VT-NEJ) from Coimbatore Airport to a place outside its reach, IOC filed C.S. No. 425 of 1997 in the Madras High Court seeking a mandatory injunction to the Airport Authority of India and Director General of Civil Aviation to detail the said aircraft stationed at Coimbatore Airport, under section 8 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, so as to enable it to take possession thereof. The High Court granted an interim injunction on 16.9.1997 restraining NEPC India from removing the aircraft (VT- NEJ) from Coimbatore Airport. In regard to the other hypothecated aircraft (VT-NEK) kept at Meenambakkam (Chennai) Airport, IOC filed a suit (OS No. 3327./1998) in the City Civ
Madhavrao Jiwaji Chandrojirao Angre [1988(1) SCC 692] 9
State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] 9
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [1995(6) SCC 194] 9
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla [1996(8) SCC 164] 9
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi
Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. [2000(3) SCC 269 = 2000(1) RLW SC 165] 9
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar [2000(4) SCC 168] 9
M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Kumar [2001(8) SCC 645] 9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [2005(1) SCC 122 = 2005(1) RLW SC 135] 9
G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. (2000 (2) SCC 636) 10
Central Bureau of investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri vs. State of Travancore
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.