Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mcleod Russel India Ltd. vs Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. on 28 April, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 10798-10800/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-08-2020
in GA No. 920/2020 04-08-2020 in AP No. 210/2020 04-08-2020 in GA
No. 921/2020 passed by the High Court At Calcutta)
MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 32048/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
(IA NO. 28774/2021- VACATING INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.10.2020)
(IA NOS. 99039/2020, IA 5775/2021,IA NO. 38630/2022- PERMISSION TO
FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)
(IA NO. 90122/2020- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
IA NO. 90130/2020- PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
Date : 28-04-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR
Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv.
Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Aviral Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Suditi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Tonk, Adv.
Mr. Nitish Rai, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Charanjeet kaur
Date: 2022.04.28
Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
16:48:43 IST
Reason: Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Adv.
Ms. Ashita Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Saigal, Adv.
2
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek E. Kishu, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Sehgal, Adv.
Mr. Shivang Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Faisal Sherwani, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Applications for permission to file additional documents, exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and permission to file lengthy list of dates are allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that the interim application filed by respondent No. 1 seeking offer given by Burman Group of Companies to acquire shares of Eveready Industries India Ltd. would not be a relief permissible in view of the interdict by the Calcutta High Court in the suit filed by IL & FS Infrastructure Debt fund & Anr. in which the parties here are defendants.
We put to learned counsel for the petitioner that an interim award having been passed against the petitioner and the High Court being in seisin of the issue, having passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner subject to furnishing of security for 40 crore by the petitioner (half the amount), why should the same be interfered by this 3 Court as the validity of the interim award is being debated before the High Court.
List on 02.05.2022, as requested.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)