MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO LTD Vs. MEETCO LONDON LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of each of the decree holders in the two executions and the petitioner/relator in the CCP, in these three matters taken up together, is for the monies, earlier in the bank account of M/s. Meetco (London) Ltd. (hereinafter called Meetco) with Bombay branch of Bank of Baroda, respondents/alleged contemnors in the CCP (hereinafter called Bank). The two decree holders and the petitioner/relator in the CCP claim preference to the said monies, in satisfaction of their respective claims against Meetco. What falls for adjudication is inter alia, the priority of their respective claims and the effect of attachment before judgment and axiomatically whether the same has any preference over attachment and/or payment in execution.

(2.) Proceeding chronologically, the Special Organizing Committee for the 9th Asian Games, 1982 (hereinafter called SOC) on or about 2nd November, 1982 instituted CS(OS) No.1475-A/1982 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 inter alia against Meetco, averring that disputes and differences had arisen between them with respect to an agreement containing an arbitration clause and for appointment of the arbitrator. It was the case of SOC that monies were due from Meetco to SOC. The suit was accompanied with an application under Section 41 r/w Schedule II of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for the relief of attachment before judgment of the amounts held by Meetco in its bank accounts in India and for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the amounts lying in the bank accounts and/or for restraining Meetco from operating the said bank accounts. Vide ex parte order dated 2nd November, 1982 in the said suit, the order of attachment before judgment of the amounts lying in the bank accounts of Meetco was made and a receiver was also appointed to take charge of the said amounts and Meetco was restrained from operating the said bank accounts. The said suit was subsequently disposed of vide order dated 4th February, 1983 with the appointment of the arbitrators and the counsel for SOC and Meetco arrived at an arrangement qua interim relief during the pendency of arbitration proceedings. It was agreed that the amounts lying to the credit of Meetco in the Bank shall continue to remain attached before judgment and shall not be operated upon or withdrawn by Meetco and the said amounts shall be kept by the Bank in fixed deposit initially for a period of one year, to be renewed for each succeeding period of one year till the ultimate conclusion of arbitration proceedings and proceedings arising therefrom and to be not released except under orders of the court. Accordingly the Receiver earlier appointed was discharged though attachment before judgment was directed to continue. A direction was also given to the Bank to convert the amount in fixed deposit as agreed and the amounts were ordered to be held subject to further orders in the suit.

(3.) On or about 4th January, 1983 Usha International Ltd. (hereafter called UIL) instituted suit No.16/1983 in this court inter alia against Meetco for recovery of Rs.29,61,475/- with future interests and costs. SOC was also impleaded as defendant No.4 in the said suit in view of the orders of attachment before judgment in the suit No.1475A/1982 at the instance of SOC. It was the claim of UIL in the suit that it had advanced Rs. 14 lacs to Meetco in trust and the said amount was lying in account of Meetco with the Bank in trust of UIL. Vide ex parte order dated 5th January, 1983 in the said suit Meetco was restrained from operating the said bank account. It was further directed on 8th February, 2004 that the amount which had been directed to be kept in fixed deposit vide orders in CS(OS) No.1475A/1982 be continued to be kept so subject to further orders of the court and Meetco will intimate to the court in the suit instituted by UIL the result of the arbitration proceedings as soon as the award, if any, is given by the arbitrator therein; Meetco was further restrained from making any agreement in relation to the amount with SOC without leave of the court. In the order dated 8th February, 1984 it is also noted that UIL had tried to intervene in CS(OS) No.1475A/1982 (supra) but had not been allowed to intervene. Though Meetco initially contested the said suit and issues were framed but subsequently was proceeded against ex parte. I may also mention that UIL, upon Meetco being proceeded ex parte, on 11th February, 1987 gave up the claim against SOC earlier impleaded as defendant No.4 and vide order dated 11th February, 1987 SOC was discharged as the defendant in the suit. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 27th October, 1987 for the sum of Rs.29,61,475/- with costs and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 19.5% p.a. In the said judgment it was also held that the amount of Rs.14 lacs lying in the account aforesaid of Meetco with the Bank was the trust property for the benefit of UIL.