Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Raman Srikanth vs State Of Telangana . on 15 February, 2016
Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh
ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.4 SECTION II
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 (Crl.) No(s). 6796/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/07/2015
in CRLP No. 16240/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh)
RAMAN SRIKANTH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and impleadment and modification of
court's order and permission to file additional documents and
interim relief and office report)
Date : 15/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishna Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
M/s. Khaitan & Co.
Mr. Yogesh Raavi, Adv.
Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A. for impleadment is allowed.
This Court on 03.12.2015 had passed the following order :-
Signature Not Verified “Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Aroraappearing for the petitioner and Mr. L. Nageshwar Date: 2016.02.17 17:00:25 IST Reason: Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2, fairly submitted that they do not have any objection if the matter is sent for mediation. Regard being had to the lis in question, we nominate Justice R.V. Raveendran, 2 formerly a Judge of this Court as the Mediator.
Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties submitted that they have instructions to state that the mediation can take place in respect of the principal dispute also.
As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the fees of the Mediator would be Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) per sitting to be paid equally by the parties.
Let the matter be listed in the second week of March 2016.” In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the learned mediator has entered into mediation and sent a report. The said report is as follows :-
“M/s Thiess Mines India Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'Thiess') entered into a Memorandum of (MOU) dated. 02.07.2008 with M/s Roshni Developers Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'Roshni') in regard to grant of a sub-contract for removal of overburden/waste in Parki Barwadih Coal Project in Jharkhand.
Alleging that Thiess refused to enter into a contract in terms of the MOU and thereby went back on its commitment under the MOU 02.07.2008, Roshni invoked arbitration against Thiess on
02.02.2012,seeking specific performance of the MOU or in the alternative for payment of Rs. 187.68 crores as compensation.
During the pendency of the said arbitration proceedings, Roshni filed a criminal complaint against (1) Thiess, (2) Mr. Bruce Munro( the then Director of thiess) and (3) Dr. Raman Srikanth (Director of Thiess since 03.12.2010). The complainant alleged that the accused induced Roshni to enter into and MOU with Thiess and invest huge funds an time and resources, by making a false representation that a sub-contract will be awarded to Roshni in regard to removal of overburden/waste; and that once it got the contract from NTPC, Thiess deliberately went back on the said representation/promise. Dr. Raman Srikanth filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the 'Cr.P.C.') in June 2014, for quashing the First 3 Information Report(Crime No. 274/2014 dated 22.03.2014)which was dismissed on 07.11.2014. Thiess also filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. in January, 2015 for quashing the FIR.
On 20.11.2014, the Arbitral Tribunal(majority) passed an Award holding that the MOU was only an agreement to agree and did not constitute a valid and binding contract. Consequently the claim of Roshni was rejected with a direction to pay cost of SGD $ 2.3 million to thiess. One of the members of the Tribunal(minority) in his dissenting opinion held that the MOU itself constituted a concluded and binding contract. The said award was challenged by Roshni before the District Court, Ranga Reddy District. The said petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed on 28.12.2015. Roshni is in the process of challenging the said order dated 28.12.2915. Subsequent to the passing of the award dated 20.11.2014, two petitions were filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. by Dr. Raman Srikanth and Thiess i.e. CRL.P. Nos. 16240/2014 and 36/2015, which were dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by a common order dated 24.07.2015, with a direction to the KPHP Police Station, Hyderabad, to complete the investigation in Crime No. 274/2014 and fie a report as per law within four months from the date of the said order.
The order dated 24.07.2015 passed by the High Court was challenged by Dr. Raman Srikanth in SLP(Crl.) No. 6796/2015 and by Thiess in SLP(Crl.) No. 9890/2015. Dr. Raman Srikanth inter alia contended that he was not even an employee or Director of Thiess when the negotiations took place culminating in the MOU dated 02.07.2008 and that he joined Thiess only in December 2010 and therefore, the complaint against him was misconceived. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued notice in SLP(Crl.) No. 6796/2015, filed by Dr. Raman Srikanth but dismissed SLP(Crl.) No. 9890/2015 filed by Thiess. Thiess has made an application for impleadment as a party in pending SLP(Crl.) No. 6796/2015.
When SLP(Crl.)No. 6796/2015 came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 03.12.2015, learned counsel appearing 4 for Roshni, Dr. Raman Srikanth and Thiess consented for the matter being referred to mediation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Justice R.V. Raveendran(Retired), as Mediator to assist the parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement The Court also made it clear that the mediation can cover not only the subject matter of the SLP, but also the principal dispute between Roshni and Thiess.
In pursuance of the above, the mediation meeting was held on 26.01.2016 at 12 Noon at Hotel Oberai, New Delhi. The mediation meeting was attended by the following:
On behalf of Roshni:
(1) Mr. I. Syam Prasad Reddy, Authorized representative of Roshni and Managing Director of M/s Indu Projects Limited (Holding company of Roshni) (2) Mr. I Siddharth Reddy, General Manager, M/s Indu Projects Limited (3) Mr. Yogesh Raavi, Advocate On behalf of Thiess:
(1) Mr. Suman Kumar Dey, Executive Director (2) Mr. Philip Woods, Associate General Counsel-Oprations (3) Mr. Atul Shankar Mathur, Mr. Karun Mehta and Ms Suveni Bhagat, Advocates of M/s Khaitan & Co.
On behalf of Dr. Raman Srikanth (1) Dr. Raman Srikanth (2) Mr. Krishna Kumar Mr. Vinod Kanna, Mr. Rama Subramanian, Advocates.
At the outset, the Mediator disclosed that he had not interest in the subject matter of the dispute between the parties nor had any contact or association with any of the parties or counsel. He explained the process and procedure of mediation in detail to the parties and in particular, that it is a voluntary non-binding dispute resolution process. Thereafter, detailed 5 negotiations were held among the parties which resulted in a settlement set out hereunder :
THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT (1) To avoid the costs, inconvenience and uncertainty of outcome of ongoing litigation, all proceedings, arbitration and criminal, among the parties, are fully and finally settled in terms of this settlement.
(2) Both parties have incurred considerable expense on the litigation mentioned above and do not wish to incur any more expenses on such litigations. Thiess shall pay US $ 18,00,000 (One million and eight hundred thousand US Dollars) exclusive of service tax(if any leviable) to Roshni in full and final settlement.
The said amount shall be deposited (in rupees equivalent) with the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, within 21 days of the order of the Court directing such deposit. If any service tax is levied on the said US $ 18,00,000,the same shall be reimbursed by Thiess to Roshni within one month of Roshni submitting all relevant documents in proof of such payment.
(3) Thiess shall waive the costs (SGD 2.3 million) levied by the Arbitral Tribunal in its favour against Roshni, Roshni is absolved of the obligation to pay the said costs.
(4) Roshni shall not initiate or continue any proceedings for setting aside the Award dated 20.11.2014 of the Arbitral Tribunal, dismissing its claim for specific performance/compensation (subject to waiver of costs as aforesaid).
(5) Roshni shall terminate/put an end to the criminal proceedings, arising out of its complaint dated 19.03.2014(Crime No. 274/2014 of KPHB Police Station, Hyderabad) against Thiess, Mr. Bruce Munro, and Dr. Raman Srikanth. Such termination shall be achieved by withdrawal/quashing of criminal proceedings/FIR in its entirety or otherwise in accordance with law. Roshni shall extend all co-operation for the same.
(6) Parties shall make a request to and /or approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for quashing the criminal proceedings/FIR against all the aforesaid three persons. Roshni confirms 6 that it has no objectin to the quashing of the said criminal proceedings/FIR and undertakes not to pursue the complaint, subject however, to the payment as per the this settlement.
(7) On the criminal proceedings/FIR being quashed, Roshni will be entitled to draw the amount (1.8 million US $ or its rupees equivalent) deposited by Thiess with the Registry of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(8) Roshni and Thiess hereby declare and confirm that they have no outstanding claim or dispute against each other, subject to the settlement of disputes as aforesaid. All proceedings pending (or which may arise out of any Award or order) shall come to an end as settled out of court.
(9) Roshni and Thiess shall file settlement with the Board Resolution authorizing Mr. I Syam Prasad Reddy and Mr. Suman Kumar Dey, respectively to enter into and execute this settlement, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India within seven days.
(10) Each of the parties hereby warrants that they and their officers and agents have and will comply with all applicable laws and regulations including those of applicable foreign jurisdictions which may have extra territorial effect, to the extent that they relate in any way to the MOU, the Pakri Barwadih Coal Project or the monies paid pursuant to this settlement(including the use of those monies, which will not be used for any unlawful purpose.
This Settlement is executed by the parties at New Delhi on 26.01.2016 in the presence of the Mediator and their respective counsel.” M/s. Thiess Minecs India Pvt. Ltd., the newly impleaded party submits that the said company or its group companies has taken the responsibility to deposit the amount in rupees equivalent to $ 1.8 million within three weeks from today. The prayer is accepted.
Let the matter be listed on 14.03.2016.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (Rajinder Kaur)
Court Master Court Master