Full Text
Translation output
· I HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 549/2013
VIDEOCON MAURITIUS ENERGY LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr N. K. Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Dr SaifMahmood and Mr Vivek
Agarwal, Advocates.
FAO(OS) 549/2013
VIDEOCON MAURITIUS ENERGY LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr N. K. Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Dr SaifMahmood and Mr Vivek
Agarwal, Advocates.
VERSUS
HUAWEI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through: Mr Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr Devashish Bharuka, Mr
Sanjiv Goel, Mr Ravi Bharuka and Ms Jamseet Chandioke, Advocates for R-1.
Mr Sandeep S. Ladda, Mr S. B. Pallor and Mr Devinder Singh, Advocates for R-2.
Mr Gaurab Banerji, ASG, Mr J.
Luwang, Ms Harsha Peechara, Mr Abhishek and Mr Sahil, Advocates for R-3 & 4.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
0/0 09.12.2013 CM No.19048/2013 (Exemption)
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Sanjiv Goel, Mr Ravi Bharuka and Ms Jamseet Chandioke, Advocates for R-1.
Mr Sandeep S. Ladda, Mr S. B. Pallor and Mr Devinder Singh, Advocates for R-2.
Mr Gaurab Banerji, ASG, Mr J.
Luwang, Ms Harsha Peechara, Mr Abhishek and Mr Sahil, Advocates for R-3 & 4.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
0/0 09.12.2013 CM No.19048/2013 (Exemption)
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) 549/2013 & CM Nos.19046-47/2013
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has furnished an affidavit alongwith the prop~sed draft of undertaking to be given by its Directors resident in India, which is taken on record. It is proposed in the affidavit that the appellant be permitted by this Court to
2013:DHC:7388-DB.= receive the amount due and payable to it by respondent nos.3 and 4 under the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 25.06.2013. The interim order against respondent nos.3 and 4, which is impugned before us, if vacated, would enable the transaction to be closed by 20.12.2013 extendable to 31.12.2013 and the entire amount ofUSD 2.475 billion is expected to be received by the appellant on or before 01.01.2014.
As per the said affidavit, it is also proposed that out of the said amount received by the appellant in whole or in part to the extent of USD
143,473,951, the appellant shall within 14 working days thereof furnish an unconditional and irrecoverable bank guarantee of USD 143,473,951 in favour of the Registrar General of this Court. The said bank guarantee shall remain alive till such time as the application of respondent no. 1 under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being OMP
No.1108/2013 is decided by the learned Single Judge.
It is also proposed that Mr Pradeep N. Dhoot and Mr Deepak Tehlan whose addresses are given in the affidavit in paragraph (iii)(c) shall furnish unqualified undertakings in the form of affidavits to this Court within a week. The affidavits shall clearly state that the appellant shall furnish the aforesaid bank guarantee as indicated above and that till such time as the aforesaid bank guarantee is furnished, the appellant shall keep aside an amount of USD 143,473,951 and shall not use the same for any purpose except for obtaining the said bank guarantee. It is also clear that the undertaking given by the Directors shall stipulate that the Directors shall be personally bound by the same and shall face necessary consequences in the event of any default in their undertakings. Alongwith the undertakings, the photocopies ofthe passports ofthe said two Directors shall also be furnished
2013:DHC:7388-DB to this Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be permitted to be impleaded as respondent no.4 in OMP No.110S/2013 and to raise all contentions before the learned Single Judge. We grant liberty to move such an application before the learned Single Judge who shall decide the same in accordance with law without interfering with the directions given by us or with the undertakings given by the Directors.
We pass the order in accordance with what has been proposed above.
To that extent, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge stands varied and modified.
Mr Gaurab Banerji, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 in the present appeal submits that he may be granted liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for deletion from the array of parties once the transaction is completed. We grant him that liberty.
We also direct that an undertaking shall be filed by a Director of respondent no.2 to back the undertakings given by the Directors of the appellant company. That undertaking should also be filed within one week.
The appeal as well as all the pending applications stand disposed of.
The copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
DECEMBER 09, 2013 MK ~, BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
~ VIBHU BAKHRU, J 2013:DHC:7388-DB
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has furnished an affidavit alongwith the prop~sed draft of undertaking to be given by its Directors resident in India, which is taken on record. It is proposed in the affidavit that the appellant be permitted by this Court to
2013:DHC:7388-DB.= receive the amount due and payable to it by respondent nos.3 and 4 under the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 25.06.2013. The interim order against respondent nos.3 and 4, which is impugned before us, if vacated, would enable the transaction to be closed by 20.12.2013 extendable to 31.12.2013 and the entire amount ofUSD 2.475 billion is expected to be received by the appellant on or before 01.01.2014.
As per the said affidavit, it is also proposed that out of the said amount received by the appellant in whole or in part to the extent of USD
143,473,951, the appellant shall within 14 working days thereof furnish an unconditional and irrecoverable bank guarantee of USD 143,473,951 in favour of the Registrar General of this Court. The said bank guarantee shall remain alive till such time as the application of respondent no. 1 under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being OMP
No.1108/2013 is decided by the learned Single Judge.
It is also proposed that Mr Pradeep N. Dhoot and Mr Deepak Tehlan whose addresses are given in the affidavit in paragraph (iii)(c) shall furnish unqualified undertakings in the form of affidavits to this Court within a week. The affidavits shall clearly state that the appellant shall furnish the aforesaid bank guarantee as indicated above and that till such time as the aforesaid bank guarantee is furnished, the appellant shall keep aside an amount of USD 143,473,951 and shall not use the same for any purpose except for obtaining the said bank guarantee. It is also clear that the undertaking given by the Directors shall stipulate that the Directors shall be personally bound by the same and shall face necessary consequences in the event of any default in their undertakings. Alongwith the undertakings, the photocopies ofthe passports ofthe said two Directors shall also be furnished
2013:DHC:7388-DB to this Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be permitted to be impleaded as respondent no.4 in OMP No.110S/2013 and to raise all contentions before the learned Single Judge. We grant liberty to move such an application before the learned Single Judge who shall decide the same in accordance with law without interfering with the directions given by us or with the undertakings given by the Directors.
We pass the order in accordance with what has been proposed above.
To that extent, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge stands varied and modified.
Mr Gaurab Banerji, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 in the present appeal submits that he may be granted liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for deletion from the array of parties once the transaction is completed. We grant him that liberty.
We also direct that an undertaking shall be filed by a Director of respondent no.2 to back the undertakings given by the Directors of the appellant company. That undertaking should also be filed within one week.
The appeal as well as all the pending applications stand disposed of.
The copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
DECEMBER 09, 2013 MK ~, BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
~ VIBHU BAKHRU, J 2013:DHC:7388-DB
JUDGMENT