Srinagar, Jan 24: The trial court Srinagar has directed the concerned Tehsildar and SHO police station Raj Bagh Srinagar to attach original property of J&K State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited situated at Agro complex Lal Mandi in Srinagar to the extent of Rs. 79,05,233 along with interests after proper verification.
The court of 4th Additional District Judge Srinagar, Naushad Ahmed Khan said, “if after verification it is found that the attached property did not belong to the judgment debtor (M/S JK State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.) the same shall be de-sealed/detached.”
The trial court also directed the authorities to submit a compliance report pertaining to said attachment or detachment by or before February 2.
The court passed the directions in an application filed by Gujarat based firm, M/S Sickle Innovation Private Limited, Ahmedabad seeking attachment of the property JK State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd for failing to clear the outstanding balance of Rs 79,05,233 despite directions passed under Arbitration Act.
The application stated that despite serving notices several times to J&K State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd have failed to satisfy the decree and has not kept any amount deliberately in the known accounts which are seized by the court.
It stated that it has become imperative to attach the property of the judgment debtor to satisfy the award/decree.
The applicant firm has sought direction that the said immovable property be attached and sold through Tehsildar concerned and decree, award be satisfied to the amount of Rs 79,05,233 along with 15% interest per annum.
Earlier on July 16, 2021, under Arbitration Act the J&K State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd was directed to pay Rs. 54,49,439 to the claimant, Gujarat based firm, towards principal amount along with the interest of Rs. 24,55,79.
The case of the claimant was that the respondent, Agro Industry, had purchased Saffron hot air dryers in 2018 and with the passage of time, the respondent started delaying the payments.
The firm claimed that it has sent several reminders to the respondent through emails to clear the outstanding.
“However, even after repeated reminders, the respondent failed to clear the outstanding payment,” it says.
.
.
