PUNJ LLOYD LTD Vs. GREAT EASTERN GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS OVERSEAS ASSURANCE CORPORATION LIMITED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 25117/2018, 25118/2018 (Exemption)

(2.) Factual scenario of the instant case is such that an execution petition was filed before the ld. Single Judge of this Court by the respondent/ decree holder seeking execution of the judgement passed by the High Court of Republic of Singapore for S$18, 954, 966.86, alongwith interest @ 3%. Pending final disposal of the said execution proceedings, the ld. Single Judge has granted interim relief to the respondent vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2018 whereby warrants of attachment have been issued qua the appellant's properties, returnable on 04.10.2018.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside as there exists no prima facie case in favour of the respondent for grant of such interim relief; that the objections to the execution petition filed by the appellant are pending consideration wherein the maintainability of the said execution petition on the ground of jurisdiction of this Court has been challenged besides other objections; that without adjudicating the objections raised by the appellant in the execution proceedings and without determination of balance of convenience in favour of respondent, the Impugned order of attachment could not have been passed; that as all the movable and immovable assets of the appellant company have been charged to the lender banks in terms of the Common Loan Agreement dated 21.05.2016 and Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 21.05.2015, the process of attachment as directed vide the impugned order would jeopardize not only the interests of the appellant but also of the secured creditors ; that no attachment could have been ordered as the appellant company is undergoing Corporate Debt Restructuring, which fact was also brought to the knowledge of the ld. Single Judge vide affidavit dtd.19.04.2018 besides envisaging the pari passu charge on all present and future assets of the appellant company; that hence the stay on the operation of the impugned order be granted, as prayed for.