Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Varuna Investments vs M/S Asian Infrastructure Pte Ltd on 22 August, 2014
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh
SLP(C) NOS. 7040-7041 OF 2014
ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIIA
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) No(s). 7040-7041/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/02/2014
in CMP No. 292/2014 and CMAMP No. 293/2014 passed by the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad)
M/S VARUNA INVESTMENTS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S ASIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD Respondent(s)
(With application for permission to file additional documents)
ALONG WITH IA NOS. 7-8 (APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS)
Date : 22/08/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Priya Puri, Adv.
Na. Pratibha Jain,Adv.
Ms. Payal Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. M.S Ananth, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Pahwa, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Arora, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee ,Adv.(NP)
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Kalyani Gupta Date: 2014.08.26 16:52:44 IST Reason: The applicant who is the petitioner in the Special Leave Petitions has come forward with these PAGE NO. 1 OF 6 SLP(C) NOS. 7040-7041 OF 2014 applications praying for stay of the order dated 31st July, 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Original Petition No. 187 of 2014 and also for grant of permission to the respondent to convert pending Section 9 application into an application under Section 56 of Singapore International Arbitration Centre [SICA] Rules [Equivalent to Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996] while reserving the contentions of each parties.
We heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram learned senior counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Mr. S. Guru Krishnakumar, learned senior counsel for the non-applicant/respondent. Since as against the order of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court dated 13th July, 2014 passed in O.P. No.187 of 2014, the applicant has got a statutory remedy of appeal, we do not wish to go into the merits of the said order.
The grievance expressed on behalf of the applicant is limited to the extent namely in paragraph 11 of the order dated 13 th July, 2014 PAGE NO. 2 OF 6 SLP(C) NOS. 7040-7041 OF 2014 passed in O.P. No. 187 of 2014, i.e while granting temporary injunction restraining the applicants herein from proceeding with exercise of any rights and remedies under the Shareholders' Agreement dated 4th March, 2010, it is specifically stated to the effect that:
“in particular as indicated under the Project Trigger Assertion Notice dated 30th December, 2013, pending disposal of Arbitration Proceedings vide SIAC Arbitration NO.237 of 2013.” Ultimately, the Original Petition has been directed to be posted for enquiries/evidence on 2nd September, 2014.
As stated by us earlier, we do not wish to express any opinion as to the grievance or otherwise of the Petitioner as regards the said statement contained in para 11 of the order dated 31st July, 2014 because that may prejudice either of the parties while working out their remedies before the Appellate Forum. However, we are obliged to take note of the interim orders passed by us on 15th April, 2014 wherein we have said that earlier order of status quo passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court in the pending Section 9 PAGE NO. 3 OF 6 SLP(C) NOS. 7040-7041 OF 2014 application not to operate as stay of the Arbitration Proceedings under Clause 9.05 of the Shareholders' Agreement dated 4th March, 2010. We also clarified that the period during which the said status quo order operated should be excluded for the purpose of computation of 45 days under Clause 8.06 of the said Agreement.
In fact, this Court passed the above said order taking note of the fact that the invocation of Project Trigger Clause by the applicant which resulted in the commencement of the arbitration in Arbitration No. 73/14 cannot be stalled during the pendency of Section 9 application which related to Arbitration No.237 of 2014. Inasmuch as this Court wanted to ensure that the arbitration pursuant to invocation of Project Trigger Clause should proceed without any hindrance and it is now stated that arbitration proceedings went on and that orders have been reserved by the learned Arbitrator. Therefore, all further consequences that should follow pursuant to the conclusion of the said arbitration proceeding should be allowed to take PAGE NO. 4 OF 6 SLP(C) NOS. 7040-7041 OF 2014 place including the passing of the Award.
With that view, we only clarify that there shall be no impediment for the arbitrator to deal with Arbitration No. 73 of 2014, proceed further and pass the Award. Based on the outcome of any such Award that may be passed in Arbitration No. 73 of 2014, either of the parties can work out their remedies in accordance with law. And all consequences that flow from such Award can also go on and that the order dated 31st July,2014 passed in O.P. No. 187 of 2014 shall not stand in the way of operation of the said award. It is also open to the applicant to workout their remedy as against the order dated 13th July, 2014 in O.P. No.187 of 2014 in accordance with law subject to the rights and remedies of both the parties. While disposing of these Special Leave Petitions, we leave it open for the petitioner to raise the plea about the maintainability of Section 9 application before the trial court. We reiterate that except to the extent stated above, we have not dealt with the merits of the contentions of respective parties PAGE NO. 5 OF 6 SLP(C) NOS. 7040-7041 OF 2014 relating to the order dated 31st July, 2014, which are left open for consideration to be urged in the appropriate proceedings.
[KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
PAGE NO. 6 OF 6