SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Altico Capital India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sare Gurugram Private Limited & Others - Respondent
CS(COMM). No. 1319 of 2018
Decided On : 12-01-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate, Amit K. Mishra, Akshat Hansaria, Manasi Chatpalliwar, Etisha Srivastava, Tushar Bhatnagar, Astha Ahuja, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Rajshekhar Rao, Pooja Mehra Saigal, Amit Singh Chauhan, Gauri Puri, Anandh Venkataramani, Hemant Chauhan, Krishanu Barua, Sahil Monga, Ashim Sood, Prabhav Shroff, Apoorva Gupta, Rhythm Buariah, Vijay Nair, Manoranjan Sharma, Advocates.

The court emphasized the importance of showing a cause of action against each defendant and the need for truthful and complete pleadings in a lawsuit.

Headnote:

This suit was filed by Altico Capital India Ltd. against multiple defendants, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain them from acting in breach of the Facility Agreement. Altico alleged that the defendants were restrained from changing their management, shareholding, and corporate structure without prior consent. The court granted an interim injunction in favor of Altico. However, SARE Cyprus, one of the defendants, argued that no cause of action was pleaded against it and that the suit contained false and incorrect pleadings with concealment and suppression of material facts. The court found that no cause of action was shown against SARE Cyprus and rejected the plaint against it, vacating the interim order and imposing a cost of Rs.1 Lakh against Altico.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. 17846/2018 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

I.A. 199/2019 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC-by defendant No.4)

I.A. 10/2020 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC-by defendant No.4)

1. This suit has been filed by Altico Capital India Ltd. (in short ‘Altico’) impleading 14 defendants, that is, SARE Gurugram Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Gurugram’); Ramprastha SARE Landholding Company Two Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Ramprastha Two’), Ramprastha SARE Landholding Company Five Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Ramprastha Five’); SARE Public Company Ltd. (Cyprus) (in short ‘SARE Cyprus’); Avon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘Avon’); Brilliant SARE Realty Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Brilliant’); Impact SARE Magnum Townships Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Impact’); SARE Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Realty’); SARE (Cyprus) SPV (No.4) Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Cyprus SPV-4’); SARE (Cyprus) SPV (No.11) (in short ‘SARE Cyprus SPV-11’); SARE Cyprus Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Cyprus Ltd.’); SARE Realty Singapore Lte Ltd. (in short ‘SARE Singapore’) (all group companies of SARE Group); Axis Trustee Services Ltd. (in short ‘Axis Trustee’) and Vistra ITCL (India) Limited (in short ‘Vistra’) as defendant Nos. 1 to 14 respectively.

2. In the suit, the plaintiff inter alia prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants (a) restraining them from acting in breach of the Facility Agreement, with respect to changing its management, shareholding, restructuring both corporate and capital, and charter documents, without prior consent of the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly; (b) restraining the defendants from acting in breach of the following agreements with respect to changing its management, shareholding, restructuring both corporate and capital, and charter documents, without prior consent of the plaintiff, directly or indirectly viz; (i) Amendment dated 24th November, 2016 to Debenture Trust Deed dated 4th December, 2015, (ii) Memorandum of Hypothecation executed by Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3 dated 3rd November, 2016, (iii) Unattested Share Pledge Agreement dated 24th November, 2016, executed by Defendant Nos.2 & 3, (iv) Corporate Guarantee executed by Defendant Nos.2 & 3 dated 24th November, 2016, (v) Corporate Guarantee executed by Defendant No.8 dated 2nd March, 2017, (vi) Unattested Share Pledge Agreement dated 2nd March, 2017 executed by Defendant No.8, (vii) Memorandum of Hypothecation executed by Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3 dated 24th November, 2016, (viii) Debenture Trust Deed dated 11th April, 2017; (c) restraining the Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 8 from changing its board of director, management of shareholding, restructuring both corporate and capital charter documents, without prior approval of the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly viz., and acting in breach of the agreements, executed in furtherance of the Facility Agreement and Debenture Trust Deed; (d) restraining the defendant Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 from changing its management, capital structure, or shareholding under the Facility Agreement dated 14th May, 2018 without prior consent of the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly; (e) restraining Defendant No.8 from changing its management and control without the prior consent of the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, under the Deed of Corporate Guarantee dated 14th May, 2018 and Unattested Share Pledge agreement under the Facility Agreement dated 14th May, 2018 and Corporate Guarantee and Unattested Share Pledge Agreement under the Debenture Trust 2.

3. Briefly the case of Altico is that Altico and KKR India Asset Finance Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘KKR India’) entered into a Facility Agreement dated 14th May, 2018 with SARE Gurugram. Under the Facility Agreement, Altico along with KKR India, the lenders of the Facility sanctioned a loan of Rs.100 crores to SARE Gurugram out of which loan amount of Rs.60 crores was extended by Altico and Rs.40 crores by KKR India. In addition to the Facility Agreement, Altico had previously also disbursed money to SARE Gurugram an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top