Nagaraj V. Mylandla vs PI Opportunities Fund-I

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 324

SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Nagaraj V. Mylandla – Appellant
Versus
PI Opportunities Fund-I – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Subramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kabra, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kadur, Adv. Mr. Ansh Desai, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Gauri Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Uday Aditya Jetley Pocha, Adv. Mr. Jayavardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Pavan Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Adnan Yousef, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Anuraag Rajagopalan, Adv. Mr. Nivethithaa.s, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Rajendra Barot, Adv. Mr. Prabhav Shroff, Adv. Ms. Mrudula Dixit, Adv. Mr. Naman Nayyar, Adv. Ms. Aditi Nazre, Adv. Ms. Shivam Jain, Adv. Mr. Shivam Jain, Adv. Ms. Sia Ganju, Adv. Mr. Abhijnan Jha, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Rhia Marshall, Adv. Ms. Amritha Sathyajith, Adv. Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ankur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Rongon Choudhary, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj Berry, Adv. Ms. Shalaka Patil, Adv. Ms. Anusha Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Sengar, Adv. Ms. Gauri Pasricha, Adv. Mr. Harsh Khanchandani, Adv. Mr. Daksh Kadian, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. M/s. Trilegal Advocates On Record, AOR Mr. Anush Raajan, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Singh, Adv. Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Suganya T.s., Adv. Mr. Parikshit Pitale, Adv. Mr. K. Shiva, Adv. Mr. Rohan Dewan, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Ms. Garima Jain, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Mr. S. Eshwar, Adv. Mrs. Aanchal M. Niching, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Supreme Court upheld enforcement of Singapore-seated foreign arbitral award against directors of FSSPL for failing to provide exit to investors under SASHA (!) (!) - Arbitral tribunal awarded damages equivalent to exit price as of 18.09.2020, with joint and several liability on FSSPL and promoters (!) (!) - Distinction affirmed between 'buy-back' (company repurchase under Companies Act) and 'surrender' (shareholder's voluntary return), rejecting public policy violation claim (!) (!) (!) - Investors' termination of promoters' rights under Clause 24.6(c) treated as interim measure, falling away upon award of damages (!) (!) (!) - Doctrine of transnational issue estoppel applies to prevent relitigation of issues settled by seat court, except on public policy grounds unique to enforcement forum (!) (!) (!) - No violation of Specific Relief Act, 1963; strategic sale as alternative remedy only if damages unpaid, not specific performance (!) (!) (!) - Madras High Court order deeming award enforceable as decree confirmed; SLP dismissed with costs of ₹25,00,000/- on petitioners (!) (!) - Clause 19 of SASHA imposed absolute obligation on company/promoters to provide exit via secondary sale, buy-back, IPO, or strategic sale (!) (!) - Waiver defence rejected as no written waiver per Clause 29.5; participation in split sale discussions insufficient (!) (!) (!)

What is the distinction between 'buy-back' and 'surrender' of shares in the context of enforcing a foreign arbitral award? [p_81][p_82][p_88]

What remedies are available to investors upon a material breach under the SASHA? [p_10][p_14][p_76]

How does transnational issue estoppel apply to enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act? [p_57][p_75][p_76]

Table of Content
1. enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. rights and obligations under sasha during material breach. (Para 12 , 14 , 76 , 86)
3. arguments regarding waiver and buy-back raised by mylandlas. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. issues regarding claims, public policy and previous court decisions. (Para 26 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. legal principles applicable to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. (Para 39 , 41 , 42)
6. introductory considerations regarding enforcement of foreign awards. (Para 49 , 50 , 57 , 58)
7. final award conclusions and implications for the parties involved. (Para 79 , 82)
8. conclusion of the supreme court ruling. (Para 90 , 92)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is in issue.

2. By common order dated 22.09.2025, a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras held the award dated 05.07.2024 passed by a 3-member arbitral tribunal, under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Act, 1994, and the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, to be enforceable and deemed it to be a decree under Section 49 of the Arbitr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

[No cases identified as bad law. None of the case laws contain keywords or phrases explicitly indicating they have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law (e.g., no mentions of "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," or equivalent language referring to the case itself).]

All cases: [Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 589, Hope Plantations LTD. VS Taluk Land Board, Peermade - 1998 8 Supreme 309, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. VS Katta Sujatha Reddy - 2024 8 Supreme 321, Annamalai VS Vasanthi - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1869, Lal Mahal Ltd. VS Progetto Grano Spa - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 587, Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225, VIJAY KARIA VS PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL - 2020 2 Supreme 417, Bhanu Kumar Jain VS Archana Kumar - 2005 1 Supreme 102, Pasl Wind Solutions Private Limited VS Ge Power Conversion India Private Limited - 2021 6 Supreme 603, Katta Sujatha Reddy VS Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 4 Supreme 475]

**Explanation**: Each case law entry consists solely of summaries of legal principles or "important points" decided in the case itself, without any references to how subsequent decisions have treated it (e.g., no phrases like "followed," "distinguished," "criticized," "questioned," "overruled," or "reversed" applied to the case). The entries appear to be standalone digests of holdings, with no metadata or annotations on judicial treatment patterns.

[]

2026 Supreme(SC) 324

SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRANNagaraj V. Mylandla – AppellantVersusPI Opportunities Fund-I – Respondent

What is the distinction between 'buy-back' and 'surrender' of shares in the context of enforcing a foreign arbitral award? [p_81][p_82][p_88]

What remedies are available to investors upon a material breach under the SASHA? [p_10][p_14][p_76]

How does transnational issue estoppel apply to enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act? [p_57][p_75][p_76]

Cases Referred (14)

Judicial Analysis

Related Judgments

Nagaraj V. Mylandla VS PI Opportunities Fund-I - 2026 Supreme(SC) 324

EIG (Mauritius) Limited VS McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 595

Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Limited - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 2041

VEDANTA LIMITED Vs THE UNION OF INDIA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 42209

Aapico Hitech Public Company Limited VS Sakthi Auto Component Ltd - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1139

Kingsroad Handelsges M.B.H vs Raj Grow Impex LLP. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14855

SS Exports vs Ark Shipping Co. Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 1790

Aircon Beibars FZE VS Heligo Charters Private Limited - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 73

ITC Limited VS Wide Ocean Shipping Service Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 410

Subway Systems India Private Ltd, having its registered office at Level-2, New Delhi VS S. Sasikala - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2207

SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Nagaraj V. Mylandla – Appellant
Versus
PI Opportunities Fund-I – Respondent