SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh – Petitioner
Versus
Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2019 With Arbitration Petition No. 22 of 2019
Decided On : 07-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Since the captioned petitions raise analogous issues between the same parties, those were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The petitioner has filed the present two petitions in terms of Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”), seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of Clause 13.10 of the Shareholders Agreement dated 25.07.2011 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner”) is a Non-Resident Indian, who is currently residing and working in Dubai, UAE, having experience and expertise in the drilling fluid industry.
4. ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent no.1”) is an Indian private limited company engaged in providing drilling fluids services to the oil and gas industry, whereas Gumpro Drilling Fluids Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent no. 2”) is a private limited company that specializes in oil field services and offers mud services.
5. A Shareholders Agreement dated 25.07.2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Shareholders Agreement”) was executed by and among the petitioner, respondent no.1, respondent no.2, Mr. Robert Wayne Pantermuehl, and Mr. Sunil B. Shitole. In terms of the said Shareholders Agreement, the petitioner was to hold 4,00,000 equity shares of respondent no. 1 and also participate in the management of respondent no.1 company. The relevant clauses from the same are reproduced hereinbelow:
Present issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company is Rs.2,64,00.000/- divided into 26,40,000 equity shares of INR 10 each which is held by the members as mentioned below:
a. Gumpro holding 18,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the Company.
b. Bob currently holding only 40,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each and shall be allotted additional 360,000 equity shares subject to getting the approval of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB). Ministry of' Finance and Reserve Bank of India or such other approval as may be required as per Indian Law.
c. Aslam Khan holding 400,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the Company and
d. Sunil Shitole holding 400,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the Company.
On allotment of further 360,000 equity shares to Bob, the issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of the Company will be Rs. 3 Crores divided into 30,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each which will be held as follow:
a. Gumpro 18,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the Company
b. Bob 400,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the Company
c. Aslam Khan 400,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the Company and
d. Sunil Shitole 400,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each in the Company
Gumpro has provided Rs.4,58,39,200 Crores as unsecured Loan (as on 31st March 2011) and Gumpro will additionally raise Rs.6.6 Crores for the Company from private equity fund or venture capital fund and advance it to the Company as secured loan against the security of equipments of the Company.
General. Subject to the terms and conditions specified in Section 4.3, the affirmative approval provisions contained in Section 9 and applicable Indian law, in the event that the Company proposes to issue any Dilution Instruments, the Company shall first offer such Dilution Instruments to all the Shareholders on rights basis, in proportion to their shareholding ratio in the Company on the date immediately prior to such further issue, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 4.2. It is clarified that the shareholding pattern of the Company as stated in Clause 4.1 shall be maintained at all times, save and except in the circumstances specified in Clause 4.2 below. It is agreed and understood by all the Parti
Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1 [Para 32]
Arif Azim Company Limited v. Aptech Limited reported in (2024) 5 SCC 313 [Para 34]
The court confirmed that the existence of an arbitration agreement is undisputed, and any claims regarding time-bar should be determined by the arbitral tribunal.
(1) Period of limitation to file application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is 3 years’ from date of refusal to appoint Arbitrator, or on expiry of 30 days’, whichever is ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act arises upon the failure to make the appointment of the arbitr....
The court confirmed that a prima facie arbitration agreement exists under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, limiting judicial scrutiny to the agreement's existence, deferring sub....
The court held that its review under Section 11(6) is limited to confirming the existence of an arbitration agreement, without delving into substantive disputes, which is for the Arbitrator to decide....
Judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, with substantive issues reserved for the arbitral tribunal.
The court clarified that post-2015 amendments, its role under Section 11 is limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement, with other issues, including limitation, to be resolved by ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.