Review Pet. 71/2021 in ARB. A. (COMM.) 13/2020 Page 1 of 26

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 31^st January, 2022

Pronounced on: 4^th February, 2022

+

REVIEW PET. 71/2021 in

ARB. A. (COMM.) 13/2020

EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY

LIMITED, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF

THE EARC TRUSTS SC-338,343,366 AND 389 ..... Appellant

Through:Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr.

Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advs. with Ms.

Misha, Mr. Sidhant Kant, Ms. Mahima

Sareen, Ms. Moulshree Shukla, Mr. Daksh

Kadian and Mr. Ramchandar Madan, Advs.

versus

GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ANR. Respondents

Through:

Mr. Parag Tripathy Sr. Adv.

with Mr. D.N.Ray, Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha

Adv, Mr. Ninad Laud, Ms. Disha Ray, Ms.

Sumita Ray and Mr. Dillip Kumar Nayak

Advocates for Respondent No 1, GTL

Infrastructure Ltd.

Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saket

Sikri and Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Kullar,

Advocates for Respondent No. 2

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

%

J U D G M E N T

04.02.2022

(By Video Conference on account of COVID-19)

1.

This is a somewhat unusual Review Petition, preferred by the

appellant who has, otherwise, succeeded in the appeal.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000447

Review Pet. 71/2021 in ARB. A. (COMM.) 13/2020 Page 2 of 26

2.

The Review Petition seeks, essentially, deletion from para 56 of

the judgement, dated 18^th November, 2020, passed by me in Arb A

(Comm) 13/2020, of the last sentence. Para 56 of the judgment dated

18^th November, 2020, reads thus:

“56. The order, dated 5^th May, 2020, passed by the High

Court of Bombay in the Suit LD-VC No. 55/20, discloses

that, consequent to the issuance of the impugned directions,

by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, a settlement had been

arrived at, between GIL and GTL, consequent to which ₹320

crores had been transferred by GIL to GTL. The order also

discloses that this amount was, subsequently, transferred back

by GTL and stands deposited in the TRA, maintained in

accordance with the TRA agreement. The impugned

directions of the learned Arbitral Tribunal would,

therefore, stand modified to the extent that all payments

directed thereunder, would be deposited, not with GIL or

in an Escrow account to be maintained by GIL, but in the

TRA, created and maintained in accordance with the

TRA agreement. The said deposit shall remain subject to

further orders to be passed by the learned Arbitral

Tribunal.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co (“Edelweiss”, hereinafter), the

appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in the Review Petition, prays

that the concluding caveat in the afore-extracted para 56, subjecting

the deposit to further orders to be passed by the learned Arbitral

Tribunal, be deleted.

3.

In order to understand the circumstances in which the present

Review Petition has come to be filed, a brief overview of my

judgement dated 18^th November, 2020, is necessary.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000447

Review Pet. 71/2021 in ARB. A. (COMM.) 13/2020 Page 3 of 26

4.

Among GTL Ltd (“GTL”), the Aircel group of companies and

Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd (CNIL), a slew of agreements¹

were executed. The upshot of these agreements was this. Aircel

desired to provide telecommunication services, on sites owned by it.

CNIL, vide the ESA, agreed to develop the said sites. In pursuance

thereof, the EMA obligated CNIL to oversee management of

electricity and diesel consumption at the sites. The EMA, however,

permitted CNIL to outsource this responsibility. Acting under the said

permission, CNIL outsourced, to GTL, the responsibility of managing

electricity and diesel consumption at the sites provided by Aircel.

Consequent thereupon, vide the TSPI Agreement, GTL agreed, on

behalf of CNI