IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
L.J. Tanna Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
63 Moons Technologies Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
Notice Of Motion No. 58 of 2019 in Suit No.121 of 2014 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 662 OF 2019 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 39615 OF 2022 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 212 OF 2014
Decided on : 13-02-2024.
NAFED - Arbitral Award Deposit Dispute - [Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 - Section 27; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 2A, Order 39 Rule 11] - The court discussed the dispute arising from the deposit of funds by NAFED in the Delhi High Court and the conflicting claims of NSEL and Plaintiffs. The court highlighted the injunction orders restraining NSEL from transferring or utilizing any funds received without permission, and the specific orders permitting NSEL to utilize only the amounts infused by Defendant No.1 into NSEL. The court rejected NSEL's application to utilize the funds deposited by NAFED, and directed the transfer of the amount to the Registry of this Court.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from the deposit of funds by NAFED in the Delhi High Court towards satisfaction of an Arbitral Award in favor of NSEL. Plaintiffs sought transfer of the funds to this Court, while NAFED sought the funds to be transferred to an escrow account for settling the claims of NSEL's investors. NSEL sought permission to utilize the deposited amount for its day-to-day activities and to support its subsidiaries.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected NSEL's application to utilize the funds deposited by NAFED, citing the existing injunction orders and the lack of specific details in NSEL's application. The court directed the transfer of the amount to the Registry of this Court, emphasizing that NSEL had been permitted to utilize only the amounts infused by Defendant No.1 into NSEL.
Issues: Dispute over the utilization of funds deposited by NAFED, conflicting claims of NSEL, Plaintiffs, and NAFED, and the applicability of existing injunction orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the existing injunction orders restraining NSEL from transferring or utilizing any funds received without permission, and the specific orders permitting NSEL to utilize only the amounts infused by Defendant No.1 into NSEL.
Final Decision: The court granted the transfer of the amount deposited by NAFED in the Delhi High Court to the Registry of this Court, rejected NAFED's Chamber Summons, and dismissed NSEL's Interim Application, while allowing NSEL to file a fresh application with better particulars for the utilization of the transferred amount.
JUDGMENT :
1. These three applications arise out of claims of rival parties to the amount of Rs. 32,14,94,304/- deposited by National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation (NAFED) in the Delhi High Court towards satisfaction of the Arbitral Award dated 1 May 2017 passed in favour of Defendant No.2-National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL). Plaintiffs have filed Notice of Motion No. 58 of 2019 inter alia seeking transfer of amount of Rs. 32,14,94,304/- deposited by NAFED with the Delhi High Court to the Registry of this Court. NAFED wants the amount to be transferred in escrow account opened at the directions of this Court for satisfying the claims of investors of NSEL. On the other hand, Defendant No.2-NSEL has filed Interim Application (Lodg.) No. 39615 of 2022 seeking leave of this Court to permit it to utilise the very same amount for its day-today activities as well as for giving financial support to its subsidiaries in accordance with the methodology decided by this Court by various orders passed in the past.
2. Plaintiffs have filed Suit for recovery of money from Defendants. It appears that Plaintiffs are already protected by various interim orders passed by this Court in their favour. On 18 December 2013, this Court has passed Order recording a statement on behalf of NSEL that it shall not dispose off, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party right, title or interest in any of its assets except for payment of statutory dues, amount of preservation, maintenance and protection of their assets and wages and salaries without the written permission of Forward Markets Commission and in case of immovable properties, without the order of this Court. During pendency of the suit, Award dated 1 May 2017 came to be passed by the Arbitrator directing payment of various amounts in favour of NSEL by NAFED. The said Award was challenged by NAFED before the Delhi High Court, which rejected challenge to the Award by dismissing the petition filed by NAFED by Order dated 1 September 2017. The Order of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court came to be upheld by the Division Bench by its Judgment dated 7 November 2017. Special Leave Petition preferred by NAFED has also been rejected by Order dated 17 September 2018, except by modifying the rate of interest from 14% to 12%. In execution proceedings filed by NSEL before the Delhi High Court, NAFED paid an amount of Rs. 65 crores directly to NSEL and the balance amount of Rs. 32,14,94,304/- came to be deposited by NAFED with the Registry of the Delhi High Court.
3. NAFED sought directions from Delhi High Court for deposit/transfer of Rs. 32,14,94,304/- in escrow account opened as per directions of this Court for settling the claims of investors of NSEL. Delhi High Court granted leave to NAFED to move this Court to seek such directions. Accordingly, NAFED has filed Chamber Summons No. 662 of 2019 in the present suit seeking direction against NSEL for deposit of amount of Rs.32,14,94,304/- in the escrow account for the purpose of settling the dues of the investors.
4. Plaintiffs are aggrieved by utilization of amounts awarded to NSEL by arbitral award and have filed Notice of Motion No. 58 of 2019 seeking various directions for bringing back the amounts already spent/transferred by NSEL. Plaintiffs rely upon Affidavit dated 27 August 2018 filed on behalf of NSEL contending that out of the amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal, an amount of Rs. 31,43,25,188 is transferred to Defendant No.1-FTIL and Rs. 30,06,70,265/- is used towards legal expenses, employees’ salaries, statutory dues and administrative expenses. Plaintiffs are aggrieved by such transfer of funds from NSEL to FTIL as well as by spending of amount by NSEL without leave of this Court and contends that such action amounts to violation of various orders passed by this Court. Plaintiffs have accordingly filed Notice of Motion No. 58 of 2019 seeking the following reliefs :
Court refused to extend fact-finding committee from investor representative suit to platform's recovery suit against trading member, requiring trial on mutual fraud allegations, ledger proof, and con....
Interest ceased to run on the deposited amount after the dismissal of FAO No. 284/2005 on 04.12.2008.
The amount deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition with a view of show his bonafide to enter into a settlement was required to be returned to the borrower in the event of....
The jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal does not extend to affecting rights of third-party secured creditors, who must be involved in proceedings for any directions that affect their interests.
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.