Kodak India Pvt. Ltd. v. ARS Graphics

1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 7.4.2015, on which date, counsel for the defendant had stated that the relief sought by the plaintiff in respect of the subject machineries has already been granted and as far as the relief of damages is concerned, the plaintiff has not laid any foundation in the plaint for claiming the same.

2. In view of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the plaintiff was directed to obtain instructions from her client as to whether it is inclined to pursue the present suit any further.

3. Today, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that she has obtained instructions from her client to the effect that it is not inclined to pursue the present suit any further. She however draws the 2015:DHC:3502 attention of the court to the order dated 4.2.2015 passed in IA No.2269/2015 and seeks a clarification.

4. The aforesaid application was filed by the intervenor, Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., praying inter alia for restraint orders against the plaintiff, pending adjudication of its application for impleadment. The intervenor had stated that the defendant had executed a Loan Agreement dated 29.5.2014 with it for purchasing the subject machineries from the plaintiff and the said machineries were duly hypothecated in favour of the applicant. Subsequently, the said machineries had been handed over to the plaintiff through a Local Commissioner in terms of the order dated 22.12.2014 and the intervenor’s counsel had submitted that his client has an interest in the aforesaid machineries and is concerned about their condition. He had requested that the said machineries should be properly preserved by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

5. In response, counsel for the plaintiff had assured the court that the said machineries are in the possession of her client and are being preserved in good condition.

6. While disposing of IA No.2269/2015, directions were issued to the plaintiff to ensure that the machineries lying in its custody are not sold/transferred or alienated without seeking prior approval of the court.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that now that the suit is being disposed of on her statement, the plaintiff be given liberty to sell the aforesaid machineries and recover the monies payable by the defendant to her client for being adjusted towards the purchase value.

8. Learned counsel for the intervenor states that this would adversely affect the interest of his client inasmuch as the machineries in question stand hypothecated by the defendant in favour of his client.

9. On a query posed to learned counsel for the intervenor as to whether his client has initiated any legal proceedings against the defendant for having committed a default in making the payment towards the loan availed of for purchasing the machineries, learned counsel states that as on date, criminal proceedings initiated by his client against the defendant are pending, but they have yet to take steps to file civil proceedings for recovery of money against the defendant. He states that if granted a period of five weeks, his client shall take necessary steps for instituting civil proceedings against the defendant and for seeking interim orders in respect of the machineries in the said proceedings.

10. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present suit with directions to the plaintiff retain the custody of the subject machineries and preserve the same for a period of five weeks from today. If in that duration, orders are passed by a competent court in favour of the intervenor in respect of the machineries in question, then the plaintiff shall abide by the said orders and it shall be entitled to participate in the said proceedings to seek appropriate orders. However, after the expiry of five weeks, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to deal with the machineries, as it may deem appropriate.

11. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending applications. No order as to costs. HIMA KOHLI, J APRIL 17, 2015 mk