IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
GPE (India) Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited – Respondent
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div)No.88 of 2022 and O.A.No.76 of 2022 and A.No.67 of 2022
Decided on : 05-01-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 49 - Foreign Exchange Management Act, 2000 - Companies Act, 2013 - Section 67(2) - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Singapore International Arbitration Act - Section 20 - Interest Act, 1978 - Section 31(7) - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23, 24, 73 - Foreign Exchange Management Act, 2000 - Petition was filed to declare final arbitral award (the Foreign Award) as enforceable by deeming same to be a decree of Court under Section 49 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) - Consequent direction to respondents to jointly and severally pay sums set out in paragraph 5 of petition was also prayed for - Held, Court conclude that respondents failed to establish any ground on which recognition of Foreign Award should be refused - Consequently, subject to requirement of obtaining RBI approval before initiating further proceedings for enforcement, Foreign Award is recognized and held to be enforceable as a decree of this Court - As a corollary, subject to and in accordance with terms and conditions, if any, imposed by RBI in its approval, respondents are required to pay the amounts claimed by petitioners in paragraph 36(b) of petition. If Foreign Award is not complied with, after obtaining RBI approval, it is open to petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings in accordance with the applicable provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Consequently, connected original application and application are closed - Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
The first and second petitioners are companies incorporated in Mauritius. The third petitioner is a private limited company incorporated in India, which is the trustee of Gaja Capital India Fund-I, a SEBI registered venture capital fund.
2. The petition was filed to declare the final arbitral award dated 07 January 2021 (the Foreign Award) as enforceable by deeming the same to be a decree of this Court under Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act). A consequent direction to the respondents to jointly and severally pay the sums set out in paragraph 5 of the petition was also prayed for. The following interim applications were filed by the petitioners: O.A.No.76 of 2022 to restrain the first respondent from utilising the sum of INR 265 crores from and out of monies remitted by the third and fourth respondents therein; and A.No.67 of 2022 for a direction to deposit the sum of INR 265 crore in a separate lien marked account.
Background
3. The petitioners are shareholders of Haldia Coke and Chemicals Private Limited (the Company). 100 equity shares (on payment of INR 10,000) and 11,09,37,000 compulsorily convertible preference shares (CCPS) (on payment of INR 110,93,70,000) of the Company, representing 100% of the issued and paid-up CCPS, were subscribed to by the first and second petitioners under Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement dated 31 May 2010. Similarly, 100 equity shares (on payment of INR 5,000) and 1,40,63,000 optionally convertible preference shares (OCPS) (on payment of INR 14,06,30,000) of the Company, representing 100% of the issued and paid-up OCPS, were subscribed to by the third petitioner under Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement dated 31 May 2010. These agreements, which are in near-identical terms, are referred to separately as the First and Second SSHA, respectively, and collectively as the SSHAs. The SSHAs provide for multiple exit options under Clause 15.2 thereof. These exit options include an IPO, strategic sale, buy back and the exercise of a put option.
4. In 2015, discussions and negotiations were held between the petitioners and the respondents for the purchase of the above mentioned CCPS, OCPS and equity shares, which stood in the name of the respective petitioner. In relation thereto, each petitioner entered into a separate Share Purchase Agreement dated 28 September 2015 (separately, the First, Second and Third SPA, respectively, and collectively, the SPAs) with the respondents herein, who were the purchasers, the Company, and two other non-resident entities. Apart from the SPAs, a Letter Agreement was executed on 28 September 2015 (the Letter Agreement) by the respondents and the petitioners. The Letter Agreement, inter alia, provides for the consequences of the failure of the respondents to make payments under the SPAs to the petitioners. Clause 3 of the Letter Agreement refers to Clause 15.2 of the SSHAs, which provides for the exit options. Clause 3 also defines a Purchaser Payment Breach.
5. In addition to the SPAs referred to above, a Share Purchase Agreement dated 28 September 2015 (the Fourth SPA) was entered into between the petitioners and SVL Limited. The subject of the Fourth SPA is the purchase of the equity shares held by SVL Limited in Shriram EPC Limited (now SEPL) by the petitioners. The sale consideration specified therein is INR 65,00,00,000. The Fourth SPA also provides that SVL Limited may require the petitioners, subject to applicable law, to purchase additional shares of Shriram EPC Limited either by transfer from SVL Limited or by subscription at a value not exceeding INR 10,00,00,000. A Letter Agreement dated 28 September 2015 (the Second Letter Agreement) was also executed by and between the petitioners, the Company, SVL Limited, and other parties. The Second Letter Agreement records the commercial understanding between the parties that the petitioners would invest INR 75,00,00,000 in Shriram EPC from and out of
Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das (1964) 1 SCR 515
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co (Renusagar)(1984) 4 SCC 679.
NTT Docomo v. Tata Sons Limited (NTT Docomo)2017 SCC OnLine Del 8078/ (2017) 241 DLT 65
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49
Vijay Karia and Others v. Prysmian Cavie Sistemi SRL and others (Vijay Karia)
SupremeToday
Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is upheld where the remedies sought by investors under the SASHA were clear, and the distinction between 'buy-back' and 'surrender' is recognized, avoiding vio....
The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may only be refused on specific grounds as outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; violations of procedural norms do not themselves constitute a b....
Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is granted under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing limited grounds for refusal based on public policy, requiring strong evidence of violation.
Foreign award enforceable under Sections 48-49 Arbitration Act is executable as decree; no separate executability test or prior RBI approval under FEMA required; prior objections on compliance/valuat....
The enforcement authority exceeded its jurisdiction by penalizing the company without establishing a contravention of FEMA regulations regarding share warrants which had prior FIPB approval.
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.