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

2024 Supreme(Del) 474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Dlf Limited - Appellant
Versus
Pnb Housing Finance Limited & Ors. - Respondents
ARB.P. No. 1190 of 2023
Decided On : 22-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate, along with Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Mr. Ishan Gaur, Mr. Jappan Preet Hora, Ms. Kanika, Ms. M. Das Gupta and Ms. Manjira, Advocates, for the Petitioner; Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr, Advocate, along with Ms. Shalaka Patil, Ms. Paulomi Mehta, Ms. Srishti Khare, Mr. Kartikeya Jha, Mr. Porus Titina and Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Advs., Mr. Arunabh Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Ashish Kr. Singh, Ms. Palak Tyagi, Ms. Muskan Malhotra, Mr. Amit K. Singh, Mr. Rishabh Sharma and Mr. Ritvik Bhardwaj, Advs. for PNBHFL., Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Vijay Nair, Mr. Rajat Joneja, Mr. Arpit Dwivedi, Ms. Sakshi Kapoor, Mr. Anmol Kumar and Ms. Vasundhara and Ms. Amshi Mishra Advs. for Omkara., Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Nishit D. and Mr. Yash, Advs. for JHL., Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Pratik Seksariya, Sr. Adv alongwith Mr. Sajit Suvarma, Mr. Nirau Shah, Ms. Aneesha Cheema, Ms. Shivani Khanwilkar, Mr. Varun Kalra, Mr. Nikunj Mahajan, and Mr. Rohit Aggarwal Advs. for Hubtown. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, along with Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Mahinder Singh Hura, Mr.Divjot Singh Bhatia, Mr. Saif Ali, Mr. Pushpendra S. Bhadoriya Ms. Rusheet Saluja, Ms. Sonam Mhatre, Mr. Amit Mishra, Mr. Sumer Dev Seth, Ms. Shreya Sethi and Ms. Riya Kumar, Advs. for Chinsha. Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv alongwith Mr. Karan Bharihoke and Mr. Siddhant Sharma, and Ms. Shreshtha, Advs. for Twenty Five South. Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Aditya Dewan and Mr. Parth Tiwari, Advs. for Akruti., for the Respondents

The court upheld that an arbitration clause within a Share Pledge Agreement remains binding post-assignment, affirming that jurisdictional issues are to be determined by the arbitral tribunal, aligning with the competence-competence doctrine.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Request for appointment of sole arbitrator - Disputes between shareholders regarding share transfer, loan agreements, and alleged collusion - Arbitration clause in SPA deemed binding even post-assignment - The court noted its limited role at referral stage, primarily focusing on the existence of an arbitration agreement. (Paras 70-75)

(B) Jurisdiction - Arbitrability of disputes involving non-signatories - The referral court should not adjudicate on merits but leave determinations of jurisdiction to the arbitral tribunal, maintaining the principle of competence-competence. (Paras 32, 70)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator following disputes with multiple respondents over loan agreements tied to shareholding in a company, with complex allegations of collusion in share transfers and governing agreements. The SPA included an arbitration clause that the court considered binding for the parties involved.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the existence of an arbitration agreement was affirmed for disputes raised by the petitioner, and an independent arbitrator was appointed. The appointment of the arbitrator will allow for exploration of jurisdictional concerns as preliminary issues.

Issues: The main issues involved whether the disputes were arbitrable and the applicability of the arbitration clause post-assignment of agreements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the arbitration clause's scope encompassed the disputed issues and reiterated that the scope of inquiry at the referral stage is confined to establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Result: Petition allowed, and an arbitrator was appointed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The referral court's role is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement (!) (!) (!) . - The issue of whether non-signatory parties are bound by an arbitration agreement must be left to the arbitral tribunal (!) (!) (!) . - An arbitration clause in a Share Pledge Agreement remains binding on non-signatories after assignment, subject to arbitral determination (!) (!) (!) .

What is the scope of the referral court's examination when a petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?

Whether non-signatory parties can be compelled to arbitrate based on the principle of competence-competence.

What is the effect of an arbitration clause in a Share Pledge Agreement after assignment of the underlying debt?


Table of Content
1. disputes concerning financial obligations and their legal context within the agreed arbitration framework. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. legal perspectives on arbitration and agreements to arbitrate between parties. (Para 24 , 26 , 27)
3. examination of jurisdictional issues and the limits of referral court authority in arbitration matters. (Para 32 , 34 , 36)
4. recognition of complexities in arbitration involving multiple parties and agreements. (Para 49 , 70)

JUDGMENT

Sachin Datta, J. - The present petition has been filed by DLF Limited ("DLF" / "petitioner") seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between itself and PNB Housing Finance Limited ("PNBHFL" / "respondent no.1"), Omkara Asset Reconstruction Company Limited ("Omkara" / "respondent no.2"), Joyous Housing Limited, ("JHL / "respondent no.3"), Hubtown Limited ("Hubtown" / "respondent no.4"), Chinsha Property Private Limited ("Chinsha / "respondent no.5"), Twenty Five South Realty Limited ("Twenty-Five South" / "respondent no.6") and Akruti Nirman Private Limited ("Akruti / "respondent no.7").

Factual Background

2. DLF alongwith Hubtown and Chinsha have been shareholders in JHL, in the ratio of 37.5% (DLF Ltd.), 37.5% (Chinsha) and 25% (Hubtown). DLF had purchased 37.5% shareholding in JHL vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.04.2004.

3. In 2017, JHL had availed a loan of Rs.800 Crores from PNBHFL under a Loan Agreement-cum-Mortgage Deed dated 20.12.2017, later modified vide Supplementary Loan Agreement dated 27.08.2020, for cluster development project/ slum rehabilitation project at Mahalaxmi Racecourse, Tulsiwadi, Mumbai. The said loan was secured by way of a mortgage created in favour of PNBHFL. In addition to the said mortgage, the entire shareholding of JHL was pledged to PNBHFL as additional security. For the said purpose, a Share Pledge Agreement dated 26.12.2017 ("SPA") was executed by the shareholders of JHL i.e., the DLF, Chinsha, Hubtown in favour of PNBHFL. The said SPA contains an arbitration clause as under:

    "17.11 Any and all disputes, claims, difference arising out of or in connection with this Agreement and the Schedule(s) of Term/Repayment Schedule/s attached hereto or the performance of this Agreement shall be settled by arbitration to be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender and the award thereupon shall be binding upon the parties to this Agreement. The place of arbitration shall be in Delhi or any other place as Arbitrator may decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any statutory amendments thereof. The proceeding of Arbitration Tribunal shall be conducted in English language. Each party shall bear cost of representing its case before the Arbitrator. Costs and charges of arbitrator to be shared equally unless/otherwise provided for in the award."

4. JHL failed to honour its payment obligations under the loan agreement and was declared as an NPA on 04.01.2022. To recover the loan amount, PNBHFL had initially sought to auction the secured assets and for the said purpose it had taken recourse to mechanism under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; however, to no avail.

5. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 27.10.2022 (placed on record by Omkara) was executed between DLF Home Developers Ltd., a subsidiary of DLF and PNBHFL, to purchase the entire shareholding of JHL against complete discharge of dues of PNBHFL.

6. PNBHFL had also issued a default notice dated 02.11.2022 read with letter dated 08.11.2022, in terms of the SPA, whereby PNBHFL sought reconstitution of JHL board and further indicated its intention to invoke the pledge and sell the pledged shares at enterprise value. Vide the said notice, PNBHFL further offered/invited offers from existing shareholders of JHL to purchase 100% pledged shares of JHL, with a reserve price of Rs. 1075 crores.

7. DLF, in response to PNBHFL default notice vide its letter dated 10.11.2022 offered an amount of Rs. 145

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top