Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) A ridiculous submission is made on behalf of the respondents, who enjoy 28 assets under the subject agreement. They admit that a sum in excess of Rs. 2 crore is outstanding on account of defaulted instalments as of date if the notice of termination is disregarded and that a sum of Rs. 5 crore would be due if the notice of termination is taken into account. The respondents, however, insist that in view of an appellate order of September 30, 2011 and since the arbitral reference is continuing, the obligation of the respondents to make payment to the petitioning finance company remains suspended.
(2.) On a previous petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A.P.No.740 of 2011, the respondents had submitted on September 19, 2011 that against the then outstanding dues of Rs. 68 lakh they had paid a sum of Rs. 6.23 lakh by assigning the insurance claim in favour of the petitioner. The Court found that even on such basis a sum of Rs. 61 lakh remained due at least on account of the defaulted instalments and the instalment for the one month after August 26, 2011 had not been tendered. The Court also noticed that lawyers representing the respondents at the previous hearing on August 26, 2011 had been replaced by September 19, 2011.
(3.) The conduct of the respondents did not inspire any confidence and receivers appointed earlier were directed to take possession of the assets forming the subject-matter of the agreement. The receiver first named in the order of August 26, 2011 was directed to take possession of all the assets in Assam and Nagaland; the other receiver was directed to take possession of the assets in Odisha. There was a life-line thrown in for the respondents in the order dated September 19, 2011. It permitted the respondents to make payment of a sum of Rs. 70 lakh (against an indisputable principal amount in default at that stage of about Rs. 70 lakh) prior to the assets being taken possession of by the receiver.;