Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE EARC TRUSTS SC-338,343,366 AND 389 – Appellant
Versus
GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ANR. – Respondent
REVIEW PET.-71/2021
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 : 31st January, 2022
Pronounced on: 4th 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.
2022:DHC:447
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 18th November, 2020, passed by me in Arb A
(Comm) 13/2020, of the last sentence. Para 56 of the judgment dated
18th November, 2020, reads thus:
“56. The order, dated 5th 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 18th November, 2020, is necessary.
2022:DHC:447
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 CNIL, to procure necessary material for establishing Passage
Telecom Infrastructure on the sites provi
