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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Hindustan Cleanenergy Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Maif Investments India 2 Pte Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 211 of 2021 & I.A 7868 of 2021, I.A. 7869 of 2021 and I.A. 7870 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2021




The court recognized the necessity of interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act due to the pandemic's impact on judicial timelines and the potential dissipation of assets.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Petition seeking pre-arbitral interim reliefs regarding the management and control of Identified Litigations under a Framework Agreement - Key aspects include (1) request for deposit of claim amount (INR 304 crores), (2) restriction on the sale of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) by the respondents, (3) maintenance of status quo regarding the Identified Litigation Securities until the disposal of the petition - Court acknowledged the prima facie case for interim protection based on the argument relating to COVID-19 impacting judicial processes, and the invocation of clauses pertaining to Identified Litigations (Paras 1, 24, 31, 42).

(B) Interim relief - Standards for grant - The Court should consider the necessity of preventing potential dissipation of assets pending arbitration, emphasis placed on the preservation of rights in the context of international arbitration where interim protection is sought (Paras 39, 41).

(C) Framework Agreement - Key clauses include management of litigation rights and triggers for redemption/acquisition of litigation securities, including the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic (Paras 15, 18).

Facts of the case:
Dispute between parties arises from the alleged acquisition of assets worth INR 304 crores for INR 1/- by respondents, with claims regarding interim protection under Section 9 due to the pandemic impacting litigation timelines.

Findings of Court:
Court found a prima facie case necessitating status quo maintenance on Identified Litigation Securities to prevent potential adverse effects on the petitioner's rights.

Issues: Entitlement to interim relief under Section 9; implications of COVID-19 on litigation timelines; validity of redemption for nominal value.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the pandemic's impact on judicial processes impacted compliance with the Framework Agreement, warranting interim protection until final determination.

Result: Interim relief granted, maintaining status quo regarding the Identified Litigation Securities.

ORDER

I.A. 7868/2021 (for exemption from filing typed copies of dim documents)

Subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of any illegible or dim documents on which he may seek to place reliance, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present.

The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 7869/2021 (for permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates)

For the reasons stated in the application, permission as sought is granted.

The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 7870/2021 (for exemption from filing attested affidavits)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions

The application stands disposed of.

OMP(I)(COMM) 211/2021

1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), seeking pre-arbitral interim reliefs. The prayer clause in the petition reads as under:

    "In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

    (i) pass an order directing the Contesting Respondent to deposit the Claim Amount i.e. the sum of INR 304,82,10,141/- (Indian Rupees Three Hundred and Four Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Ten Thousand One Hundred and Forty One Only) in accordance with Clause 8.12 read with Schedule 12 of the Framework Agreement in the Court's Registry, which shall be released subject to the outcome of the arbitration proceedings;

    (ii) alternatively, restrain Respondents No.1 and 2 from, directly or indirectly, selling the SPVs (Respondents No.3-11) or, directly or indirectly, creating any third-party rights in relation to the SPVs (Respondents No.3-11) including their assets in any manner whatsoever until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings; and

    (iii) restrain the Respondents No.1-11 from, directly or indirectly, taking any steps which may adversely affect the rights of the Petitioner in respect of the Identified Litigations, pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings; and

    (iv) pass an ex-parte ad interim order in terms of prayers (i) to (iii) above;

    (v) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. Arguments were advanced, on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents, by learned Senior Counsel. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued on behalf of the petitioners, while Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Rajiv Nayar argued on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no substance, whatsoever, in the petition, which deserves to be dismissed outright. In the alternative, if the court was of the view that the petition merited notice, learned Senior Counsel opposed grant of any ad interim relief pending disposal of the petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, per contra, submitted that the petition deserved to be allowed and that, at the very least, deserved notice with grant of ad interim relief as prayed in prayer (iv) supra.

5. Essentially, therefore, arguments revolved around whether the petition deserves notice and if so, whether the petitioners are entitled to ad interim relief.

6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel at length, I am of the view that the petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case worthy of consideration and that limited ad interim protection deserves to be granted, so that the present proceedings are not frustrated, even while setting down the petition itself for hearing expeditiously.

7. Accordingly, issue notice, returnable on 28th September, 2021, at 2.15 p.m. The matter shall be taken up for final hearing on the said date. Counter-affidavit be filed within 4 weeks, with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioners who may file rejoinder, if any, at least 48 hours in advance of the next date of hearing.

8. It is made clear that, subject to the respondents adhering to the time fixed for filing counter-affidavit, default, on the part of the petitioner, in

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