Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (2) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (2) TMI 806 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to ICC arbitration award.
2. Termination of Shareholders Agreement (SHA) and Share Subscription and Purchase Agreement (SSPA).
3. Financial contributions and obligations under the Restated Shareholders Agreement (RSHA) and Restated Share Subscription and Purchase Agreement (RSSPA).
4. Tribunal award details and subsequent legal costs.
5. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. Interim orders and financial deposits.
8. Sale of Project Land and involvement of NOIDA.
9. Settlement terms and final payment arrangements.
10. Affidavits of undertaking by the Appellants and M/s Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to ICC Arbitration Award:
The Appellants challenged the ICC arbitration award dated 20.01.2015, which was passed in favor of Respondents No. 1 and 2. The award included a payment of ?45,00,27,747/- with simple interest and additional costs.

2. Termination of SHA and SSPA:
The Appellants and Respondents entered into SHA and SSPA on 21.03.2008, which were later terminated. Subsequently, RSHA and RSSPA were executed on 02.07.2009. The Appellants terminated these agreements on 17.12.2009, leading to the arbitration invoked by Respondents No. 1 and 2.

3. Financial Contributions and Obligations under RSHA and RSSPA:
Under RSHA and RSSPA, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were required to contribute ?45 crore for shares in Respondent No. 3. This amount was brought in by 17.12.2009. The Tribunal found that the Appellants terminated the agreements immediately after the funds were brought in.

4. Tribunal Award Details and Subsequent Legal Costs:
The Tribunal's award included:
- Payment of ?45,00,27,747/- with 18% simple interest from 31.10.2011 to the award date.
- Simple interest @ 15% p.a. on all sums awarded until payment.
- Appellants were directed to pay arbitration costs, including legal fees of ?2,39,08,082/-, hearing venue costs of ?6,57,635/-, and other expenses of ?1,274,931/-.

5. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The Appellants filed objections under Section 34, which were rejected by the Delhi High Court on 09.02.2017. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings as consistent with the agreement terms.

6. Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The Appellants' appeal under Section 37 was rejected by the Delhi High Court on 08.05.2017. The appeal was deemed devoid of merit.

7. Interim Orders and Financial Deposits:
The Supreme Court, via interim orders, directed the Appellants to deposit ?20 crore and restrained them from alienating the Project Land. Subsequent orders allowed partial withdrawal of the deposited amount and directed the sale of the Project Land under court supervision.

8. Sale of Project Land and Involvement of NOIDA:
The Appellants identified M/s Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as a buyer for the Project Land for ?99,44,55,000/-. NOIDA's dues were crystallized at ?42,64,75,477/-. The sale proceeds were to be deposited in the Court Registry.

9. Settlement Terms and Final Payment Arrangements:
The settlement included:
- Total payment of ?107.50 crores to Respondents No. 1 and 2.
- ?21.53 crores already received by Respondents from interim orders.
- Balance of ?85.97 crores to be paid by the Appellants.
- M/s Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to pay ?99,44,55,000/- for shares in Respondent No. 3.
- ?42,64,75,477/- to be paid directly to NOIDA.
- Remaining ?56,79,79,523/- to be deposited in the Court Registry.

10. Affidavits of Undertaking by the Appellants and M/s Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.:
The Appellants and M/s Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. filed affidavits of undertaking to comply with the settlement terms. The Appellants undertook to deposit the shortfall amount within three months, and M/s Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. committed to the payment schedule.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the ICC award and modified the interest and penal interest terms by consent. The Appellants and M/s Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were directed to comply with the settlement terms, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates