Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Surya Kant Jaipuria vs Auduth Timblo on 25 September, 2024
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
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). 11666/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-03-2022
in AUA No. 15/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
at Goa)
SURYA KANT JAIPURIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AUDUTH TIMBLO & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 83262/2023 - STAY APPLICATION)
Date : 25-09-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Parag P.Tripathi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sreenivasan Ramaswami,Adv.
Mr. Ravi Aggarwal,Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Aggarwal,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Shrivastava,Adv.
Mr. Manish Paliwal,Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar,Adv.
For M/S. Corporate Legal Partners, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rafique A.Dada,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Gurudatt R.Mallya,Adv.
Ms. Anupama Dhurve,Adv.
Mr. Sriram Krishna,Adv.
For M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard the learned senior appearing for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.09.27 petitioners.
19:05:26 ISTReason: 1 The challenge is to a decision of the High Court in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the "Arbitration Act"). The dispute is about the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA), the first supplemental Share Purchase Agreement (SPA-1) and the second supplemental Share Purchase Agreement(SPA-2). The High Court in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act has proceeded to set aside the Award made insofar Claim No.1 is concerned. Claim No.1 was pertaining to interest payable at the rate of 14 per cent per annum which was denied by the Arbitral Tribunal.
After having perused the relevant clauses of the three SPAs and after perusing the relevant paragraphs of the Arbitral Award, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court that there is perversity in the findings arrived at by the Arbitral Tribunal by interpreting clauses 2 and 3 of SPA-2.
After having perused the relevant portions of the Award pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, we find that when it comes to consideration of clauses 2 and 3 of SPA-2, the perversity is writ large on the face of the Award. The finding regarding perversity has been clearly recorded in paragraphs 31 and 33 of the impugned judgment. 2 We do not think any other view was possible as regards the interpretation and meaning of clauses 2 and 3 of SPA-2. We, therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
3