High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Global Steel Holdings Limited & Others – Respondent
EX.P. 337 of 2014 with EA Nos. 697-98 of 2014 & 199-200 of 2015
Decided On : 09-03-2015
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 73, 74 R/w 30 - Execution - Possession of share certificate - Consideration of jurisdiction - Execution petition for execution of the Settlement Agreement - GSPI is incorporated in Philippines - Situs of GSPI's shares are in Philippines - GSPI's shares cannot be "effectively dealt with" here - Apart from the shares, it is not shown that there is any other property, movable or immovable, of the JDs located within jurisdiction of this Court - Affidavit in support thereof indeed is not in accordance with the requirement of Order XIX Rule 3 CPC - Held, merely because the DH has in its possession in Delhi the share certificates issued by GSPI to evidence the holding of its shares by GSHL cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court to pass orders in respect of those shares - Court is not persuaded to hold that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 21 Rule 37 - Coercive process against JD - Arrest and detention - Scope of - Coercive process of arrest and detention of a JD ought not to be resorted to by an executing Court in the very first instance even before ascertaining whether the decree can be satisfied by the JD - Mere fact that the JDs are likely to appear before the Court of the MM in New Delhi at a future date, although none of them is ordinarily resident within its jurisdiction, would not confer jurisdiction on this Court to straightaway order their arrest and detention in these proceedings.
Introduction
1. On 30th August 2014 State Trading Corporation of India Limited (STC), the Decree Holder (DH), filed the present execution petition for execution of the Settlement Agreement (SA) dated 15th November 2011 as modified by Further Settlement Agreement (FSA) dated 17th May 2012 under Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) which were final and binding on the parties and were to be treated as an Award under Section 74 read with Section 30 of the Act.
2. The Judgment Debtors (JDs) as stated in the memo of parties are as under:
1. M/S GLOBAL STEEL HOLDINGS LTD.(GSHL)
Registered Office, 1st Floor,
Murdoch House, North Shore Road,
Ramsay, Isle of Man
Channel Islands, IM8 3DY
Also at:-
3, Auckland Terrace,
Parliament Street,
Ramsay, Isle of Man,
1M81AF.
And Also at:-
43, Grosvenor Street, London W1K 3HL
2. M/S GLOBALSTEEL PHILIPPINES
(SPV-AMC) INC. (GSPI)
12/F SGV IBLDG,
3750, AYALAAVE.
Makati City 126, Philippines.
Also at:-
Unit 2703, 27th Floor,
88, Corporate Centre,
Sedeno Corner,
Valero Street, Salcedo Village,
Makati City 1227
Mania [Philippines]
And Also at:-
Suarez Illigan City - 9200,
Philippines.
3. MR. PRAMOD MITTAL
S/o. Shri Mohanlal Mittal,
Chairman
M/S GLOBAL STEEL HOLDINGS LTD.(GSHL)
And M/S GLOBAL STEELPHILIPPINES (SPV-AMC) INC. (GSPI) Suarez Illigan City - 9200, Philippines.
Also at:-
Renaissance Court,
3-5 Woods Mews,
Mayfair, London,
UK-W1K7DN
And Also at:-
M/S BALASORE ALLOYS LTD.,
71, Park Street,
Park Plaza, Kolkata - 7000016.
Contents of the execution petition
3. In Column 5 of the execution petition it is stated that a sum of US$ 72,421,582 had been received by the DH. It is then stated in Column 6 that earlier an execution petition under Diary No. 198662/2012 was filed on 13th December 2012 against the JDs. Since objections were raised by the Registry, the petition was taken back and not re-filed. In Column 7 it is stated that after adjustment of the amount already received, the DH was entitled to receive from the JDs as on 15th August 2014 US$ (USD) 363,561,183.85 equivalent to Rs. 1678,91,83,790 (average exchange rate of 1 USD = Rs. 46.1798, calculated as per the base date of payment by STC to Bank) which was inclusive of interest @ 13.50% per annum. In Column 9, the names of three JDs are set out as entities/persons against whom the execution is sought in the present petition.
4. In Column 10 of the execution petition which specifies the DH to indicate “in what manner Courts assistance is sought”, it is stated as under:
“By issuing warrants of attachment, sale of attached properties, by issuing garnishee orders, and by taking over control of all assets of the Judgment Debtors in India and by issuing certificates to foreign countries declaring the amounts of money not realized in India so that decree can be executed by attached and sale of assets of the Judgment Debtors lying abroad, namely, Philippines, U.K. Bosnia and Nigeria and also by issuing warrant of arrest and detaining the Judgment Debtors in respect of the unrealized amount at the cost and expenses of the Applicant.”
5. The DH has in the execution petition sought execution of the SA and the FSA, as well as the personal guarantee given by Mr. Pramod Mittal, Chairman of GSHL and GSPI, to STC. It is also prayed that orders should be passed for “attaching and selling all the shares and other assets” of JDs 1 and 2 as mentioned in Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3. Inter alia it is prayed that assets of the JDs lying in Philippines, United Kingdom, Bosnia and Nigeria should be attached and sold.
Applications filed by the DH along with the petition
6. Along with the execution petition the following applications were filed by the DH:
(a) Execution Application No. 697 of 2014 under Order XXI Rule 11 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) read with Section 151 CPC praying that all the shares and other assets of the JDs 1 as mentioned in Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 should be attached and sold; the interest of the J
Jolly George Varghese v. The Bank of Cochin (1980) 2 SCC 360
Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava AIR 2007 SC 1717
Mechano Paper Machines Limited v. NEPC Papers and Boards Limited AIR 2012 Cal 26
Motorola Inc v. Modi Wellvest 116 (2005) DLT 524
Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Limited (2006) 13 SCC 322
R Vishwanathan v R.S. Abdul Wajid
R.P. Moidutty v. P.T. Kunju Mohammed AIR 2000 SC 388.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. Sivakama Sundari S. Narayana S.B. Murthy (2011) 6 CTC 11
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.