Gujarat High Court
Sadbhav Engineering Limited vs Montecarlo Limited & on 22 August, 2013
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, A.G.Uraizee
SADBHAV ENGINEERING LIMITEDV/SMONTECARLO LIMITED O/OJA/22/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD O.J.APPEAL NO. 22 of 2013 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 479 of 2013 In O.J.APPEAL NO. 22 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? SADBHAV ENGINEERING LIMITED & 1....Appellant(s) Versus MONTECARLO LIMITED & 8....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR ND NANAVATI, LEANRED SENIOR COUNSEL with MR JAI KANS ADVOCATE AND MS. GARGI VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 2 MR. MIHIR JOSHI, LEANRED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR. GURSHARAN H. VIRK AND MR. S.N. SOPARKAR, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SANDEEP SINGHI for the Opponent(s) No. 2 - 3 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 22/08/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) The learned counsel for the parties agreed that though this matter is not listed for final hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken this O.J. Appeal for final hearing. At the preliminary stage, affidavits are not required to be filed as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents and no affidavit-in-reply has been filed at this stage in this appeal.
We have heard Mr. N.D.Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Jai Kans and Ms.Gargi Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Gursharan H.Virk and Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Sandeep Singhi appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The aforesaid counsels for the respondents are appearing on the caveat. Notice. They waive service of notice on behalf of respective respondents.
Counsel for the parties agree that all the other respondents are formal respondents and no notice is required to be issued to them and they are not required to be served.
This Original Jurisdiction Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Company Law Board, Western Bench Mumbai, which is extracted below :
C.P.No.78/2013 mentioned ad-interim prayer prayed. In the facts and circumstances of this case at present prayer at (j) at page 102 is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to send a representation of the petition namely Deloitte to take inspection in the next week. The R-I company is hereby required to give sufficient notice to the petitioner of the Board Meeting in future giving sufficient time to respond to the agenda item. Meanwhile, the R-I company may resort to circular resolutions sparingly considering the facts and circumstances of this case. Further allotment of shares shall be subject to the outcome of the CP. The petitioner is allowed to respond to CA178/2013 mentioned and argued by the respondents, within three weeks rejoinder within two weeks thereafter CA178/2013 to be argued on 10.9.13 at 10.30 a.m. The brief facts of the case for the purpose of deciding this O.J. Appeal are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Company Petition No.78 of 2013 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for various reliefs. It was filed on 8.7.2013. The present appellants who were on caveat filed an application on 25.7.2013 under Section 8 being Civil Application No. 178 of 2013. The company petition and Section 8 civil application filed by the present appellants were mentioned for hearing on 29.7.2013. It is also relevant to mention over here that on 9.5.2013 invoking arbitration clause contained in paragraph 36 of the share-holders agreement, a notice was given to respondent No.1 Montecarlo Limited. Respondent No.1 replied to the notice dated 9.5.2013 by letter dated 17.5.2013 that arbitration is not acceptable and the proposal for appointing Mr.Justice M.B.Shah as sole arbitrator was not agreed upon by respondent No.1.
The Company Law Board took the matter for the first time for hearing on 29.7.2013 and passed the interim order extracted above. On the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the Board granted time to the parties to exchange their affidavits.
We have carefully gone through the interim order passed by the company law board. It does not give any reason for granting interim relief except that the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order has been granted in terms of prayer clause (J) of the Company Petition. However, in the application filed by the appellants under Section 8, time was granted to the parties to exchange the affidavits. It is also relevant to point out here that for non-compliance of the order passed by the company law board dated 29.7.2013, respondent No.1 had filed Contempt Petition being Misc. Civil Application No. 1826 of 2013 for contempt of the order dated 29.7.2013 and non-compliance of the order dated 29.7.2013 by the present appellants in the High Court, which was disposed of on 21.8.2013 with a direction to approach the company law board for enforcement of the order passed by the Company Law Board.
The appellants had filed O.J. Appeal in the Registry on 14.8.2013. A copy of the present appeal was not served on the learned counsels for the caveator. There was office objection with respect to non-service of notice of copy of the petition on the caveator and the advance copy of the petition was served upon the counsel for the caveator on 17.8.2013. An application for interim relief was filed by the appellants on 25.8.2013 and a copy was served on the same date upon the counsel for the caveator and this matter has been taken up for admission hearing today.
The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the company law board could have proceeded to grant interim order without deciding the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act or at least giving reasons as to why it is granting interim order irrespective of the fact that the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act has been filed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums reported in (2003)6 SCC 503, wherein paragraph 14, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided in the original action after such an application is made except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. The Apex Court further in Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and Another v. Potluri Madhavilata and Another reported in (2009)10 SCC 103 in paragraph 18 has held that the legislative mandate of Section 8 is the command to the Court that once the prerequisite conditions of Section 8 are satisfied, the court must refer the parties to arbitration on fulfilment of the conditions of Section 8 and no option is left to the court but to refer the parties to arbitration. The Apex Court further observed that there was nothing on the record that prerequisite conditions of Section 8 are not fully satisfied in the case before the Apex Court, therefore, the matter ought to have been referred to arbitration as per the clause of the agreement.
On the strength of above decisions Mr.Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel has urged that the company law board could not pass any interim order without examining section 8 application and without considering section 8 application as to whether the conditions of section 8 of the Arbitration Act are satisfied or not and that the conditions of section 8 were fully satisfied, it had no option but to refer the matter to an arbitrator and could not grant any interim relief.
On the other hand, Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel have vehemently urged that it was open to the company law board to pass an interim order to protect the petitioners/original respondents and decision on section 8 application would required some time as their affidavits were required to be exchanged. Therefore, according to them, the court below did not commit any illegality and the case relied upon by the Apex Court in Jehal Tanti and others v. Nageshwar Singh (D) thr.LRs. reported in AIR 2013 SC 2235 in paragraph 10, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that while deciding a civil dispute where the objection about the jurisdiction of the Court is raised, it is open to the court to grant an interim relief and thereafter decide the injunction application.
In our opinion, in view of the two Supreme Court decisions mentioned above, the law appears to be clear that once an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed, it is obligatory and mandatory for the company law board to decide or prima facie find out as to whether the conditions mentioned in Section 8 of the Act are fulfilled or not and once it comes to the conclusion that the conditions under Section 8 are satisfied, then the company law board had no option but to refer the parties to an arbitration.
Learned counsel for the caveators/respondents have also raised objections that since the company has not filed this Appeal, therefore, this appeal would not be maintainable. On 29.7.2013, the company law board has issued direction to all the respondents, therefore, the appellants are well within rights to file this O.J. Appeal and challenge the order dated 29.7.2013 and it cannot be said that the appeal would not be maintainable since the company has not filed this appeal. The appellants would have locus standi to challenge the order passed by the company law board and decision relied by the learned counsel for the caveators in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H.Pandya and another reported in (2003)5 SCC 531 would not apply to the facts of the instant case.
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that there are some parties outside the agreement and therefore, Sukanya Holdings Private Ltd. is not required to be considered at this stage because it is open to the company law board to examine all the questions of objections raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
Therefore, we do not fit it proper to express any opinion on this question. We leave it open to the company law board to decide the objection after it decides the applicability of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also urged that the order passed by the company law board and proceedings before the law board were in rem and not in persona.
We do not go into this question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the caveators before the Company Law Board, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that since no reasons has been assigned while granting interim order nor the application under Section 8 has been examined by the Company Law Board to arrive it a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the condition of Section 8 has been fulfilled or not. Therefore, we have no option to set aside the order passed by the company law board dated 29.7.2013 and remand the matter back to the company law board with a direction to decide the application under Section 8 and the prayer for interim relief together and the company law board in passing interim order is directed to record its reasons as to whether conditions mentioned in Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is satisfied or not and then only it can proceed to pass an interim order. It is open to the company law board to decide the aforesaid questions either recording its prima facie satisfaction on section 8 of the Arbitration Act for passing interim order or finally.
Mr.Sandeep Singhi, learned advocate appearing for the caveator/respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in this appeal has made statement before us that the objections to Section 8 application which is to be filed before the company law board has been served on 20.8.2013 upon the counsel for the appellant Mr.Wadia Ghandy and to all other respondents of the company petition, but it has not yet been filed in the office of company law board at Mumbai. He shall file the same before the Company Law Board on 23.8.2013. Affidavit-in-reply and reply-in-rejoinder will be filed within four days i.e. on 27.8.2013.
We are preponing the date of hearing of the application under Section 8 and the interim relief and fixing the same before the Company Law Board on 30.8.2013 and on that date, Company Law Board shall decide the applicability of section 8 of the Act either prima facie or finally as to whether condition mentioned under Section 8 is satisfied and what order are required to be passed by the Company Law Board on the application under Section 8 and interim relief and petition and prayer for interim relief.
The order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Company Law Board is hereby quashed and set aside.
This Original Jurisdiction Appeal is allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
Since the main O.J.Appeal has been allowed, therefore, Civil Application No.479 of 2013 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) Ashish Tripathi Page 10 of 10