Here is the full text of the Kolkata High Cour order referred in the above post of @mateen1985:
United Arab Bank Vs. Rei Agro Ltd.
LegalCrystal Citation : legalcrystal.com/1157102
Court : Kolkata
Decided On : Jul-18-2014
Judge : I. P. MUKERJI
Appellant : United Arab Bank
Respondent : Rei Agro Ltd.
Judgement :
TA No.124 of 2014 T No.263 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE UNITED ARAB BANK Versus REI AGRO LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 18th July, 2014.
Appearance: Mr.Sudipto Sarkar, Sr.Advocate Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Advocate Mr.S.Chakraborty, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Mookerji, Sr.Advocate Mr.Tilak Bose, Sr.Advocate Mr.P.Sinha, Advocate Mr.S.Mitra, Advocate Mr.S.Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.D.Ghosh, Advocate for the respondent The Court: The plaintiff is the lender.
An organisation by the name of “Ammalay” is the borrower.
The defendant is the guarantor.
Mr.Sarkar, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff, amongst many other things placed a Memorandum of Settlement dated 12th June, 2014 between the parties where a payment schedule was agreed upon for payment of the dues of the plaintiff.
According to him, only the fiRs.installment was paid on 12th June, 2014.
He relies on clause 9 of the Memorandum and argues that since there was default in the payment of subsequent installments by Ammalay and the defendant, the settlement has come to an end and the bank is entitled to enforce its entire outstanding claim immediately.
It is also suggested that the defendant has many other creditors whose dues they are unable to pay.
Acts of insolvency are also alleged.
Mr.S.N.Mookerji, learned Senior Advocate for the defendant, on the other hand submits that this Memorandum of Settlement was made to be signed by his client under duress and to be more specific at gun-point.
A sum of $one million was paid by his client prior to the execution of the Memorandum of Settlement to
which Mr.Sarkar replies that this amount was given credit to while calculating the amount due and the installments.
Considering the above prima facie case and the balance of convenience, I think that the assurance made in court by Mr.Mookerji, on instruction, that his client will not alienate, encumber, part with possession or otherwise deal with whatever interest it has in room No.15, 46C Chowringee Road, Everest House, (15th floor).Kolkata 700 071, is sufficient.
I do not think that any formal order is called for at this stage.
Let affidavits be exchanged according to the following directions :Affidavit in opposition is to be filed by 8th August, 2014.
List this application on 20th August, 2014.
Affidavit in reply may be filed in the meantime.
The point of maintainability is kept open.
This order will not affect the steps being taken in respect of any criminal complaint or criminal proceedings.
Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) G/
LegalCrystal - Indian Law Search Engine -
www.legalcrystal.com