ORDER :

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants (Award Debtors). Also heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Darius Khambata, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent (Award Holder).

4. The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 25.04.2023 in the Arbitration Petition No. 833 of 2015 and Notice of Motion No. 2475 of 2016 respectively whereunder, the High Court has facilitated the enforcement of the final Award dated 27.09.2014 issued in the SIAC Arbitration No. 088 of 2012. The appellants’ objection to enforcement of the foreign Award, in terms of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Indian Arbitration Act”)was rejected and the High Court also directed that the order of attachment against the Award Debtors shall continue to operate during the execution proceedings to be undertaken by the respondent. Accordingly, the Award Debtors were called upon to place on record disclosure affidavits as regards their properties.

Facts

5. This case has a chequered history and it is essential to note the background facts for the present challenge.

5.1. The respondent-HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (for short “HSBC”) is a company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius. The appellant No. 1 Avitel Post Studioz Limited (for short “Avitel India”) is a company incorporated under the laws of India and it is the parent company of Avitel Group. It holds entire issued capital of Avitel Holdings Limited, which in turn, holds entire issued share capital of Avitel Post Studioz FZ LLC. Appellant No. 2 is the founder of Avitel Post Studioz Limited, being its Chairman and Director, while Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are his sons, who are directors of Appellant No. 1.

5.2. On 21.4.2011, a Share Subscription Agreement was entered between HSBC & Avitel India whereby HSBC made an investment in the equity capital of Avitel India for a consideration of US$ 60 million dollars to acquire 7.8% of its paid-up capital. This agreement contained an arbitration clause which provided that the disputes shall be finally resolved at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Singapore was designated as the seat of arbitration and Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act was excluded, except Section 9 thereof. Thereafter, the parties also entered into a Shareholders’ Agreement(6.5.2011) which defined the relationship between the parties and contained an identical arbitration clause.

5.3. It is the case of HSBC(Award Holder) that the appellants at a very advanced stage made certain representations to HSBC stating that the investment of US$ 60 Million was required to service a significant contract with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

5.4. Following the investment, according to HSBC, the appellants ceased to provide any information regarding the contract with BBC, despite numerous follow-up attempts. At this stage, HSBC engaged their independent investigation agency, where it was discovered that the purported BBC Contract was non-existent and the invested amount was siphoned off to different Companies.

5.5. On 11.05.2012, HSBC invoked the arbitration clause under the SIAC Rules and claimed damages of US$ 60 million from the appellants. On 14.5.2012, SIAC Appointed Mr. Thio Shen Yi, SC as an Emergency Arbitrator. On 17.5.2012, the appellants' challenge to the appointment of the Emergency Arbitrator was considered by SIAC & Rejected. On 28.05.2012 and 29.5.2012, the emergency arbitrator passed two interim Awards, in favour of HSBC inter alia, directing the appellants to refrain from disposing of/diminishing the value of their assets upto US$ 50 million. On 27.7.2012, the Emergency Arbitrator made an amendment to Interim Awards granting further relief to HSBC by rejecting to desist investigations against Avitel Dubai and Avitel Mauritius.

5.6. According to HSBC, the appellants made several attempts to delay and frustrate the