The main legal point established is that separate legal entities cannot be impleaded based on investigations into the affairs of another entity, and that the delay in filing and re-filing a petition must be for bona fide reasons.

IA No. 3716 of 2016 (u/O 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC)

1. This is an application filed by the Petitioner, Sravanthi Infratech Private Limited (‘SIPL’) under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking impleadment of Joint Provisional Liquidators (‘JPLs’) of the 100% holding company of the Respondent, Greens Power Equipment (China) Company Limited (‘GPECL’), viz., Greens Holdings Limited (‘GHL’), Hongkong on the ground that in terms of the announcement made in relation to the Cayman Court “having appointed inspectors for examining the affairs of the GHL and its subsidiaries."

2. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner draws attention of the Court to the announcement issued on behalf of GHL by the JPLs. It is submitted that since the affairs of the Respondent, GPECL are also a subject matter of such investigation, it is necessary to implead GHL through its JPLs as parties to the present petition.

3. The Court finds that although the investigation was ordered into the affairs of GHL and its subsidiaries, the appointment of the JPLs was only in respect of GHL and not its subsidiaries. It is further seen that while in the course of investigation into the affairs of GHL it was noticed that one of the Executive Directors of GPECL had been arrested and detained for allegedly destroying various accounting vouchers and accounting books etc., there is nothing in any of the notices to indicate that the affairs of GPECL were being investigated. GPECL and GHL are separate legal entities that can sue and be sued in their own capacity. In the circumstances, the Court fails to appreciate how GHL or its JPLs are necessary parties to the present petition. The application is accordingly dismissed.

IA No.18528/2015 (for condonation of delay in filing the petition)

IA No.18529/2015 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the petition)

4. These are applications for condonation of delay in the filing and re-filing of the petition by Sravanthi Infratech Private Limited (SIPL) against Greens Power Equipment (China) Co. Ltd. (GPECCL) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) challenging an Award dated 25th February, 2015 of the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) in the disputes between the parties.

5. In the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition, it is stated that a copy of the Award was received by the Petitioner on 24th March, 2015. It is pointed out that 90 days period of limitation ended on 22nd June, 2015, which was a court holiday. The Court opened after summer vacations on 29th June, 2015. However, the petition could be filed on 10th July, 2015 resulting in a delay of 11 days.

6. One explanation offered is that there were three other separate agreements between the parties resulting in three separate Awards being passed in the disputes between the same parties. It is stated that Respondent had admitted that the various agreements were part of the same transaction and therefore the impugned Award in the present case was not a standalone Award. It had to be treated as part of a series of arbitration and, therefore, the limitation did not begin to run till the last of the Awards was passed.

7. The above explanation is unacceptable for the simple reason that the attempt by the Respondent to have the separate arbitrations consolidated failed with the order passed by the Court rejecting such request. Therefore the Awards and the limitation for filing the objection petition under Section 34 of the Act would begin to run from the date each of the said Awards were delivered to the Petitioner.

8. In the reply filed to the present application it is pointed out by the Respondent that an e-mail was sent by the ICC International Court of Arbitration (ICA) on 10th July, 2015 in which it was stated that the date of receipt by the Petitioner was 19th March, 2015 and not 24th March, 2015 as claimed by the Petitioner. It is further pointed out that if one were to go by the above