Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 4062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
BMIC LIMITED, EBENE MAURITIUS - APPELLANT
Vs.
CHINNAKANNAN SIVASANKARAN - RESPONDENT
E.P. No. 62 of 2016 and A. Nos. 473 and 2164 of 2016 and O.A. No. 50 of 2016
Decided On : 12-12-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. H. Karthik Seshadri, M/s. Iyer and Thomas
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Srinivas for Mr. S. Mohan, Mr. V. Raghavachari for Mr. A. Shamsudeen Raja, Mr. C. Jagadish, Mr. S. Premauxilaraj, Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, Mr. Shivakumar and Suresh, Mr. P. Suresh, Mr. P.T. Rakesh
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections, 2 (4), 13, 44 A, 60 and Order 21, Rule 23 , Order 39, Rule 1 and Order 21, Rule 22 - Civil case - Licence - Parties commenced negotiation as the petitioner threatened to refer its claim to the arbitrator - Three agreements were signed, a decision was given by the Honourable Apex Court of India on a claim challenging the validity of 2G licences - Held, As rightly observed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, it dealt with the peculiar provisions contained in the two enactments - There is one more reason for adopting such a yardstick - This Court does not want to deal with the execution petition in a piecemeal manner - Once it is felt that the matter requires examination of the parties, there is no need to decide some of the issues leaving the other to be decided at a later point of time - This will also makes this Court to dispose of the execution petition at an earlier point of time - Ordered accordingly
M.M. Sundresh, J.
The case has got a chequered history. The cause of action starts from here, goes to United Kingdom, then to Seychelles and now once again reverted back to the original place. Thus, this case has completed a circle, which is inclusive of two legal proceedings before the Foreign Courts.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The background facts surrounding the case required for the proper narration are as follows:
(i) The petitioner is the wholly owned subsidiary of the Bahrain Telecommunications Company B.S.C. (Batelco). Batleco is an international telecommunication provider having its headquarters in Bahrain.
(ii) The first respondent is the successful Indian entrepreneur. He is the non-executive Chairman of the Siva Group of Companies (Siva Group) and the ultimate beneficial owner of the second respondent (Siva Limited) which is a member of the Siva Group. The Siva Group is an industrial conglomerate with headquarters in India. The Siva Group has been arrayed as second defendant before the Honourable High Court Queen's Bench Division, London. In the year 2009, the petitioner subscribed US$174,489,797 to acquire 42.7% of S Tel Private Limited, a telecommunication company registered in India. In the year 2008, the Government of India has awarded 2G mobile telecommunications licences to S Tel. S Tel was a joint venture between Batleco (minority partner) and Siva Group (majority partner).
(iii) An option agreement was executed on 08th May 2009 between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 to purchase the petitioner's 42.7% shareholding in S Tel for the same amount subscribed by it. This is to be done by the respondents 1 and 2. It was accordingly sought to be exercised by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner served two liquidity event notices on Siva Group. It was denied by respondents 1 and 2. Once again the liquidity event notices were served, which has resulted in the same denial.
(iv) In the month of June 2011, the parties commenced negotiation as the petitioner threatened to refer its claim to the arbitrator. Accordingly, three agreements were signed on 30.11.2011. On 02.02.2012, a decision was given by the Honourable Apex Court of India on a claim challenging the validity of 2G licences. Among others, S Tel licence was also cancelled. Under those circumstances, a revised proposal was offered by respondents 1 and 2. Accordingly, an agreement was once again reached on 20.06.2012. Claiming that respondents 1 and 2 have not complied with their part of the agreement entered into between the parties, Honourable High Court Queen's Bench Division, London was approached. After contest and after consideration of the respective cases of the parties, judgment was delivered by Honourable High Court Queen's Bench Division, London on 12.06.2014 in Claim No.2012 Folio No.1439.
(v) The first respondent is the citizen of Seychelles. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Honourable High Court Queen's Bench Division, London, the first respondent and 5th respondent, who was his wife filed a petition for divorce in the Supreme Court of Seychelles. The proceedings initiated was quickly concluded with the first respondent showing his benevolence and fairness to the 5th respondent by doling out substantial consideration, perhaps believing the maxim "Charity begins at home". The order of divorce being conditional was passed on 27.03.2014 followed by a final one on 30.04.2014. On 12.06.2014, the judgment was passed by Honourable High Court Queen's Bench Division, London, which was followed by Worldwide Freezing Order. On 21.07.2014, the first respondent filed an insolvency petition before the Supreme Court of Seychelles. However, it was not disclosed before the Honourable High Court Queen's Bench Division, London.
(vi) The following are the dates and events thereafter, which are not disputed by the respondents and as furnished by the petitioner:
"The English Court had passed a world wide freezing order on
