Skbm Mining Project PVT LTD And Anr vs. Srei Equipment Finance LTD And Anr

Facts

The appellants, SKBM Mining Project Pvt. Ltd. and another, are challenging an order dated 18th November, 2021, passed by a learned single judge. The respondents are Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. and another. The dispute involves alleged dues payable by the appellants to the respondents, which include lease rent and GST. The impugned order likely directed a receiver to take possession of subject assets. The appellants sought to appeal this order, arguing that the dues claimed by the respondents are significantly less than what is being demanded. The respondents, however, refuted these submissions, asserting that their claim is properly made and includes all installments, lease rent, and GST.

Held

The High Court admitted the appeal and modified the impugned judgment and order dated 18th November, 2021. The Court found no ground to interfere with the order entirely but sought to provide an opportunity for the appellants to pay the dues. The Court directed that upon the appellants paying Rs. 25 lakhs to the respondents by 20th December, 2021, the receiver would stay his actions regarding taking possession of the subject assets until 4th January, 2022. During this period, the appellants can file an application before the learned single judge to argue that the dues are less than claimed and that they will pay the admissible dues or provide security. The learned single judge will then decide whether the stay on the receiver taking possession should continue. If the appellants fail to obtain such an order by 4th January, 2022, or fail to pay the Rs. 25 lakhs by 20th December, 2021, the receiver is to proceed with taking possession as per the impugned order. The Court explicitly left undecided the precise quantum of admissible dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned single judge erred in not considering the appellants' submission that the admitted dues are substantially less than the claimed amount, and that the appellants are willing to pay the admissible dues or provide sufficient security? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and the assessment of dues under the agreement). 2. Whether the impugned order directing the receiver to take possession of the subject assets should be stayed pending a further determination of the actual dues payable by the appellants? Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: The appellants argued that the dues claimed by the respondents are inflated and that they are prepared to pay the correct, admissible dues or furnish adequate security. They sought an opportunity to present this case before the learned single judge. Revenue/Respondent's Arguments: The respondents contended that each installment payable by the appellants includes lease rent and GST, and that their claim against the appellants is valid and properly calculated. They refuted all submissions made by the appellants.