$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 22.12.2025 % Judgment delivered on: 30.03.2026 + LPA 1185/2024, CM APPL. 71163/2024 & CM APPL. 75920/2024 PUTZMEISTER CONCRETE PUMPS GMBH AND ANR ...Appellants Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rohin Dubey, Mr.Sagar Chawla and Ms.Mansvini Jain, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms.Ira Singh and Mr.Aryan Dhaka, Advs.

for UOI.

Mr.Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rishi Agrawala, Mr.Rajesh Vaidya, Mr.Gaurav Goel, Mr.Aditya Bapat, Mr.Abhay Agnihotri and Mr.Abhishek Anand, Advs. for R-5 to R-7.

Mr.Zoheb Hossain, SPC for ED with Mr.Vivek Gurnami, Panel Counsel along with Mr.Kartik Sabharwal, Mr.Pransal Tripathi and Mr.Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

CHALLENGE

1. The instant intra-Court appeal seeks exception to the judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, W.P.(C) 8148/2010 instituted by respondent no.5-Putzmeister India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the „PIP’), has been disposed of with certain directions, with a further stipulation that there shall not be any stay or injunction on operation of the ex-post facto approval till newly constituted Committee takes appropriate decision on the proposal of appellant no.1- Putzmeister Concrete Pumps GmbH (hereinafter referred to as the „PCP’ whereby, ex-post facto approval of the respondent no.2 was sought under Press Note-1 (2005 Series) for investment made by it in appellant no.2- Putzmeister Concrete Machines Private Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the „PCM’

DETAILS OF PARTIES BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 19.12.1997, appellant no.1-PCP, with a view to manufacture certain types of pumps in India, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the „JVA-I’) with respondent nos.6 and 7. JVA-I provided for inter alia supply of technology for manufacturing certain pumps/products of appellant no.1-PCP. The agreement further provided that appellant no.1-PCP shall subscribe to 24% of the capital of a Joint Venture Company, which was to be formed.

3. On 19.12.1997 itself, a License Production Agreement was also entered into between appellant no.1-PCP and respondent nos. 6 and 7, making provisions for technology in respect of some products of appellant no.1-PCP. This agreement was executed for entering into the license of manufacturing and marketing of some products of appellant no.1-PCP in India. It also stipulated provision for supply of technology for the licensed production and marketing of licensed products.

4. Pursuant to JVA-I, a Joint Venture Company in the name of respondent no.5-PIP was incorporated on 23.01.1998. In accordance with JVA-I, respondent nos.6 and 7 subscribed to 76% of the shares of respondent no.1 and appellant no.1-PCP subscribed to 24% of its shares.

5. Another JVA was entered into between appellant no.1-PCP and respondent nos. 6 and 7 on 04.11.2004 (hereinafter referred to as the „JVA II’). As per JVA-II, certain changes were to be given effect to in the scheme of the Joint Venture already in existence in the form of respondent no.5-PIP, which included reorganisation of the share capital, according to which, shareholding of appellant no.1-PCP in respondent no.5-PIP would be 65% and shareholding of respondent nos. 6 and 7 in this Company would be 35%. JVA-II also provided that the Board of Directors of respondent no.5-PIP will comprise of 5 Directors with 3 Directors to be nominated by appellant no.1-

PCP and 2 Directors to be nominated by respondent nos.6 and 7.

6. Appellant No.2-PCM was incorporated on 14.06.2005 having its registered office at Goa. Appellant No.1 holds 99.99% shareholding of appellant No.2 and rest of 0.01% of its shareholding is held by Stabau GMBH, Germany.

7. On 23.06.2005, appellant no.1-PCP issued three notices. The first notice was issued by appellant no.