State Bank of India vs Ericsson India Private Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 570

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Ericsson India Private Limited – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Abhishek Kale, Ms. Shally Bhasin, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Mr. Chaitanya Safaya, Mr. Manan Shukla, Ms. Ishita Chakarbarti, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Ms. Mansi Kapur, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Ms. Mansi Kapur
For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Mr. Sujjain Talwar, Mr. Vikram S. Nankani, Ms. Iqbal Chagla, Mr. Naresh Thacker, Mr. Sailesh Poria, Ms. Mihika Jalan, Mr. Ashish Prasad, Ms. Mukta Dutta, Mr. Sanyam Saxena, Mr. Rohan Roy, Mr. M.P. Devanath, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. Anil K. Kher, Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Mr. Kunal Kher, Mr. Akshat Malpani, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. Nishant Menon, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Ms. Kavita Sarin, Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, Mr. Shafiq Ahmed, Mr. Prateek Seth, Ms. Prashanti, Mr. A. Nabi

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. An arbitration dispute is pending between the unsecured creditors and the debtors. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an order under Section 17 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 restraining the claimants and its heirs from alienating, encumbering, transferring any of its assets without permission of the Arbitral Tribunal. The reason given for passing the order is balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The said order has been confirmed by the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. Principal contention of the secured creditor(s)- appellant(s) herein is that neither they are party before the arbitrator nor the order which purports to be akin to Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code has been passed by complying with the conditions under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 10 CPC. It is also submitted that the secured creditors cannot be deprived of their statutory rights against the assets by the Arbitral Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned orders by submitting that the sale by the secured creditors is to be in accordance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 570

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ROHINTON FALI NARIMANState Bank of India – AppellantVersusEricsson India Private Limited – Respondent

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Ericsson India Private Limited – Respondent