IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I. CHAGLA, J.
Ganatra Hotels Private Limited and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Kiran Ranchodas Ganatra and Another – Respondents
Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 44 of 2016, Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 113 of 2017
Decided On : 12-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
R.I. CHAGLA, J.
1. By the Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 44 of 2016, the Petitioners are seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 5th April 2016 as corrected vide Sole Arbitrator’s letter dated 27th May 2016. Both the Commercial Arbitration Petitions are connected and arise from the same impugned Award dated 5th April 2016. During the course of arguments, Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 44 of 2016 and the Petitioner in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 113 of 2017 on instructions states that the Petitioner in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 113 of 2017 is not pressing the Commercial Arbitration Petition.
2. By the impugned Award dated 5th April 2016, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 (referred to hereinafter as “Panchamias”/“Pachamias Group”) and the Petitioner No. 1 (referred to as “Ganatra Hotels”), who were the Respondents in the arbitration proceedings were directed to make payment of sums of money to the Respondents herein and Claimants therein (referred to as “Ganatras”/”Ganatra Group”), and which payment is corresponding to the Ganatra Group’s shares in Ganatra Hotels. The impugned Award has thus granted a complete exit to the Ganatra Group from Ganatra Hotels by giving them monetary value of their shareholding and entitlement.
3. The brief background of facts are necessary and which are set out as under:
(ii) In the year 1987, Ganatra Hotels purchased land at Shivaji Nagar, Pune bearing Survey 132 A/2A/2/1, corresponding to C.T.S. 2687/A admeasuring about 3991.5 sq. mtrs.
(iii) After acquisition of the property Anil Popat and Girish Popat (“the Popat Group”) joined Ganatra Hotels as shareholder. Under the two groups i.e. Ganatra Group and Popat, the Company i.e. Ganatra Hotels operated its business of two divisions namely construction and hotel division.
(iv) Post 1996-97 the Panchamias approached the Ganatra Group for setting up a star category hotel and multiplex centre by joining as shareholders. It is necessary to note that the Popat Group was not interested in the hotel and multiplex entertainment centre. Hence, it was contemplated by the parties that the construction business will be a separate division under the control of the Ganatra Group.
(v) On 5th January 1999, a Shareholders Agreement was executed by and between the Ganatra Group and the Panchamias and Ganatra Hotels as the Confirming Party:
(a) The Shareholders Agreement recorded that the Ganatra Hotels owned land admeasuring 3891.50 sq. mtrs at Village Shivaji Nagar, Pune on which Ganatra Hotels was constructing a star category hotel comprising of 96 rooms.
(b) The object of the Shareholders Agreement was to enable the Panchamias and the Ganatra Group to jointly own and manage the hotel business of Ganatra Hotels after the exit of the Popat Group therefrom.
(c) Under Clauses 3.3.1 to 3.3.3, the Ganatra Group was to ensure transfer of the construction business, which was thereafter to be separately carried out by the Ganatras and the Popat Groups.
(d) Further, under Clause 3.3.4, the Ganatra Group was to ensure within 90 days from the execution of the Shareholders Agreement that Ganatra Hotels issued 70,00,000 shares of each Types ‘A’ and ‘B’ which were to relate to and facilitate the ownership and control of the construction business and of the hotel business respectively.
(e) Under Clause 3.5 of the Shareholders Agreement, till separation of construction business, the Panchamias were to be allotted Fully Convertible Debentures which were thereafter to be converted into Type ‘B’ shares.
(f) Under Clause 4.1 of the Shareholders Agreement, the value of Ganatra Hotels’ land was quantified at Rs. 6,50,00,000/-. The Ganatra Group’s initial contribution was to be 50% of the cost of t
A. Kanthamani vs. Nasreen Ahmed
Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority
Assam State Electricity Board and Others vs. Buildworth Private Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 146
Bank of India Limited and Others vs. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Chinoy and Company
Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others
Bishandayal and Sons vs. State of Orissa and Others
Indira Kaur vs. Sheo Lal Kapoor
Jagjeet Singh vs. Unitop Apartments
Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi and Others
McDermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others
N.P. Thirungnanam vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Others
Narinderjit Singh vs. North Star Estate Promoters Limited
Rahat Jan vs. Hafiz Mohammad Usman (Deceased by LRs.) and Others
South East Asia Marine Engineering and Construction Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 164
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited vs. National Highways Authority of India
State of Goa vs. Praveen Enterprises
Suman Parmananddas Mundhada and Others vs. Saroj Screens Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Sundeep Khanna vs. A. Das Gupta and Others
Suresh Kumar Lal vs. Smt. Lalti Devi
UHL Power Company Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Umabai vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan
Welspun Speciality Solutions Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
The court upheld the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the arbitrator's findings on readiness and willingness, and the award of compens....
The main legal point established is the requirement for arbitral awards to be reasoned and based on credible evidence, and the court's limited scope of interference with arbitral awards.
The court upheld the specific performance of the share purchase agreement, emphasizing the enforceability of such contracts under the Specific Relief Act and the Sale of Goods Act. The court also rej....
The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the Tribunal unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded person could do.
In share buyout disputes post-oppression relief, first option holder's failure to timely accept higher fair valuation waives right, allowing reciprocal purchase by counterparty; belated revival imper....
A valid contract for specific performance must have certainty regarding price, parties, property, and terms; lack of clarity renders the agreement void.
Company - Valuation of shares - It is fair and reasonable and supported by strong reasons and evidence. Court minded to accept that valuation and thus put an end to this litigation. Respondents/plain....
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.