IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Aapico Hitech Public Company Limited & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Sakthi Auto Component Ltd - Respondent
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No. 296 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 47, 49 - Companies Act, 2013 - Section 241 - Arbitration Original petition has been filed under Sections 47 & 49 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 for enforcement and execution of final Award passed by Foreign Arbitral Tribunal - Held, However, all those aspects have not been considered - Petitioners have concealed various documents and failed to produce same, subsequent to second procedural order passed by Tribunal and by concealing all these documents award was obtained and present award came to be passed under above circumstances - Court is of view that foreign award is suffered with infirmities, as narrated above - Therefore, enforcement of award is liable to be rejected for reason that violation of FEMA Regulations coupled with commissions of fraud on part of petitioner in valuing SGAH shares, which are not curable in nature, apart from other instances that are narrated above - Arbitration Original Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
[PRAYER : Arbitration Original Petition is filed under Sections 47 & 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to declare that the Arbitration Award in SIAC Arbitration No.376 of 2019 dated 06.10.2021 be enforced as a decree of this Court, as against the respondent and for costs.]
This Arbitration Original petition has been filed dated 08.12.2021 under Sections 47 & 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 for enforcement and execution of the final Award passed by Foreign Arbitral Tribunal dated 06.10.2021.
2. In brivity, the 1st petitioner “Aapico Hitech Public Company Limited” is herein referred to as “Aapcio Thailand”; the 2nd petitioner “Aapico Investment Private Limited” as “Aapico Singapore” and the 3rd petitioner “Sakthi Global Auto Holdings Limited” as “SGAH” and the respondent, “Sakthi Auto Component Limited” as “SACL”.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
3.2 Aapico Thailand holds 100% shares of Aapico Singapore and hence, Aapico Thailand and Aapico Singapore are collectively referred to as “Aapico Group” and its Founder and the President is one Mr. Yeap Swee Chuan (Mr. Yeap). “SGAH” is incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. In 2017-18, Aapico Group invested in SGAH which was then part of the Sakthi Group of Companies (“Sakthi Group”). As on date, as Aapico holds 100% of the shareholding in SGAH, Aapico and SGAH are hereinafter collectively referred to as 'petitioners'.
3.3 SACL/respondent is a public unlisted company incorporated in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu (India), which is among the Sakthi Group, controlled by Dr. Mahalingam.
3.4 The genesis of the entire dispute between the parties originates from the dealings of two groups, one being “Sakthi Group” and the other being “Aapico Group”.
3.5 Initially, in about 2000, the automative foundry part of Sakthi Group's business was hived off into a separate company, i.e Sakthi Auto Components Limited, viz., SACL, the respondents herein, controlled and managed by Dr. Manickam Mahalingam and family. In 2004, SACL began supplying steering knuckles to General Motors (GM) and expanded its production capcities through various factories in different countries. One such expansion was in USA namely Sakthi Auto Group USA Inc., which is herein referred to “SAGUSA”. In 2012, SAGUSA entered into a Joint Venture (JV) with the Chinese company namely Bethel Automative Safety Systems Co. Ltd (Wehei China), because of an increased demand from the GM. The terms of this JV were eventually set out in an agreement dated 16.02.2019. The JV was carried out through two new companies, viz., namely Wehiei Bethel Sakthi Automative Safety Systems Co. Ltd (WBS) wherein SAGUSA owned 49% and Wehei China 51% and the other one is Wehei Bethal Sakthi Automative Co. Ltd, (Sakthi Bethel) wherein, SAGUSA owned 51% and Wehei China owned 49%. In a simplified outline, WBS produced steering knuckle castings for SAGUSA in China, which SAGUSA then machined in the USA before on-sale as finished products to GM.
4. The background of the present dispute can be stated as under :
4.2 In 2018, SAGUSA was experiencing financial problems, these were attributed by Dr. Mahalingam primarily to thefts of castings and to technical issues and by Mr. Yeap primarily to
Dropti Devi vs. Union of India
Gemini Bay Transcription (P) Ltd. v. Intergrated sales service Ltd
LMJ International Ltd v. Sleepwell industries Co. Ltd
Syed Askari Had Ali Augustine Imam v. State Delhi Admn.
India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd.
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharastra
Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf
Venture Global Engg. v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
Venture Global Engg. LLC v. Tech Mahindra Ltd.
Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204
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....
An arbitral award obtained through fraud and misrepresentation violates public policy, rendering it unenforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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....
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....
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.