AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
According to learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, although the application for interim relief has been filed in the Commercial Division of this
Court, there is no order that the suit has been filed in the Commercial Division. Counsel submits that the suit is for money lent and advanced by the
plaintiff in respect of loan and that the plaintiff is NBFC. The suit would fall under the definition of a “commercial dispute†under Section 2(1)
(c)(i) of the 2015 Act under the ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers etc.
In view of the above, the suit is designated as a commercial suit under the provisions of the 2015 Act. The department be directed to transfer the suit
to the Commercial Division of this Court.
The suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who claims to be non-banking financial corporation (NBFC), for money lent and advanced to the defendant by
way of several tranches of payments amounting to Rs.6.26 crores as on the date of filing of the suit. The present application is for injunction
restraining the respondent’s legal heirs, legatees etc. from selling or transferring or disposing of a property owned by the defendant in Goa in
favour of any third party.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cause of action in the present application arises out of publication in The Economic
Times, Kolkata edition, on 12th June, 2021 which refers to the respondent as “late Gazdar†besides several other facts in respect of the
respondent’s property. Counsel places the article to show that one Rita Mehta, niece of the respondent, has inherited the respondent’s
property ‘Palacio Aguada’ and plans to sell the property to one Pinky Reddy for a sum of Rs.80 crores. The article also talks about a deal
which is undergoing due diligence and that the purchaser plans to convert the property into a boutique hotel. Counsel places the documents by which
sums of Rs.50 lakhs, 1 crore, 30 lakhs and 25 lakhs were given to the respondent by way of loans in 2010-2011 and the receipts given by the
respondent in respect of the same. Counsel refers to the confirmation of accounts corroborating the respondent having received these amounts.
Accounts for 1st April 2013 to 31st March, 2014 further shows that the respondent had made repayments towards interest for an amount of Rs.5
lakhs approx. A letter of demand from the petitioner’s advocate on record to the respondent dated 19th January, 2016 is shown for refund of a
sum of Rs.3,29,51,169/- together with interest.
Counsel further refers to a certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of this Court on 22nd June, 2021 confirming that the defendant has not entered
appearance in the suit either in person or through his advocate up to the date on which the certificate was issued. Counsel prays that appropriate
orders may be passed to secure the loan given by the petitioner.
Upon considering the materials on record through submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner has successfully made out prima facie case for grant of injunction against alienation or transfer of the respondent’s property located at
Goa. The fact that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner for monies received by the respondent is established from the receipts and the
confirmation of accounts which are on record. Although the suit is of 2016, the respondent has not entered appearance in the suit to defend the claim
in the suit which is for a decree of Rs.3,29,51,169/-. The newspaper article further shows that the property of the respondent is a valuable property
which is apparent from the deal valued at Rs.80 crores. It is also clear from the article that the property is in the process of being sold to a third party
for being converted into a hotel. It is further clear that the respondent is no more and that the respondent’s heir is proceeding to sell the
respondent’s property. Hence, if the petitioner is not granted a measure of protection at this stage, the petitioner’s claim may entirely be
frustrated. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury are likewise satisfied from the contents of the pleadings and the documents on record
and the claim of the petitioner should be secured at this stage.
In view of the above there shall be an order of restraint from sale, transfer etc. from the property situated at Goa as described in paragraph 2 of the
petition. In the event the property at Goa is sold or transferred, the heirs of the respondent shall keep aside a sum of Rs.6.26 crore in a separate fixed
deposit account. Since this order has been passed ex-parte, the advocate on record of the petitioner is directed to serve GVK or the concerned
officers thereof who would be aware of the ongoing transaction between the respondent’s niece, Rita Mehta and Pinky Reddy, wife of Sanjay
Reddy of GVK.
The petitioner’s advocate-on-record is also directed to serve a copy of this order on the registration department, Government of Goa, and other
authorities as mentioned in prayer (c) of the petition in order to effectively serve the parties interested in the property of the respondent or the sale
thereof. The petitioner is also directed to advertise the particulars of this suit and the order passed by this Court in a reputed English daily in Goa.
The order of injunction will remain in place for a period of three weeks from date.
Leave to proceed with the suit without substituting the legal representatives of the respondent will be considered on the next date.
List this matter on 20th July, 2021.