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
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
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant ad interim protection under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, even in the case of foreign-seated arbitrations, and the appl....
Principle of minimum judicial intervention is one of fundamental tenets of arbitration law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to international commercial arbitration, and the court's authority to ....
Existence of a binding contract requires clear consensus on essential terms, which was absent in this case; hence, specific performance cannot be granted.
The court clarified that without an explicit agreement to exclude Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, its applicability cannot be assumed, allowing claims under Section 9 for interim relief despite ong....
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.