IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Sterling and Wilson International Fze - Appellant
Versus
Sunshakti Solar Power Projects Private Limited - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 460 of 2018 and I.A. Nos. 9313 of 2019, 9356 of 2019 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 461 of 2018 and I.A. Nos. 9314 of 2019 and 9358 of 2019
Decided On : 22-06-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions under arbitration act for interim relief (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts regarding petitioner and respondent's agreements (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. court's previous orders and modifications (Para 17 , 19) |
| 4. arguments on petitioner’s obligations and respondent's defenses (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. legal guidelines for interim relief under arbitration act (Para 24 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. court’s conclusions on securing financial claims (Para 76 , 84 , 88) |
| 7. final orders from the court (Para 90) |
JUDGMENT
1. Both these petitions have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `Act') seeking interim reliefs. Prayers sought in OMP (I) (COMM) 460/2018 are as under:
"(a) Direct the Respondents to furnish security to a tune of USD 34,723,013 being the Offshore Supply Price, by way of an unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee in favour of the Petitioner pending the completion of arbitration proceedings and making of the Award; or
(b) In the alternative, direct the Respondents to furnish security by depositing a sum of USD 34,723,013 being the Offshore Supply Price, before this Hon'ble Court pending the completion of arbitration proceedings and making of the A ward; and
(c) Grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondents, their respective directors, servants, officers and/or agents from in any manner directly and/or indirectly, voluntarily and/or involuntarily, transferring, conveying, alienating, dealing with, creating third party rights and/or otherwise encumbering the Project, including the land, plants, equipment and machinery and other articles at the site where the Project is situated pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition and during the arbitration completion of arbitration proceedings and making of the Award; and
(d) Grant an order of temporary injunction restraining Respondent nos.2, 7 and 8 from transferring, disposing off, creating a charge and/or encumbering, in any manner, their shares and other securities held by them directly and/or indirectly in Respondent nos.1,3,4,5 and 6 pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition and during the arbitration completion of arbitration proceedings and making of the Award; and
(e) Grant an order of temporary injunction restraining Respondent no.4, from transferring, disposing off, creating a charge and/or encumbering, in any manner, its shares and other securities held by it in Respondent nos. 1 and 5 pending the hearing and final disposal the Petition and during the arbitration completion of arbitration proceedings and making of the Award; and
(f) Grant an order of temporary injunction restraining Respondent nos.3, 5 and 6 from transferring, disposing off, creating a charge and/or encumbering, in any manner, the shares and other securities held by them in Respondent nos. 4, 6 and 1, respectively, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition and during the arbitration completion of arbitration proceedings and making of the Award; and
(g) Grant ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of the above; and
(h) Award the cost of this Petition to the Petitioner; and
(i) Pass such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require in the interest of justice and equity."
2. With minor differences in the facts and dates of the documents, the two petitions involve common issues and questions of law and are being decided by a common judgment. Minor differences in the facts of the two cases will be detailed in the later part of the judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, facts and documents in OMP (I) (COMM) 460/2018 are being referred to.
3. Facts, as averred, on behalf of the Petitioner in OMP (I) (COMM) 460/2018 are that Petitioner is a Company incorporated under laws of United Arab Emirates carrying on business of supply of Solar Modules, PV Invertors and Trackers, required for commissioning of Solar Power Projects. Peti

The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.