Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shristi Infrastructure Development ... vs Rishima Sa Investments Llc (Mauritius) on 19 July, 2019
Bench: Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5696 OF 2019
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 16102 OF 2019]
SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RISHIMA SA INVESTMENTS LLC (MAURITIUS)
& ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5697 OF 2019
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 15986 OF 2019]
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties. We want to make certain clarifications in the impugned order passed by the High Court of Delhi.
3. The question is about the enforceability of a foreign award. It has been filed in the High Court. Signature Not Verified The Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.07.25 16:49:46 IST Reason: Ltd. has the objection about the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to enforce the same. It is submitted that the award has been passed by the High 2 Court having jurisdiction as provided under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court, by the impugned order, has directed to file an affidavit in Form 16A of Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is required when the stage of Section 48 is reached as the provisions of CPC are made applicable for the purpose of execution of the award.
4. After having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that firstly, the High Court is required to decide the issue about the territorial jurisdiction to enforce the award under Section 47 of the Act. In case the High Court comes to a conclusion that it has the jurisdiction to enforce the award, obviously the High Court has to proceed under Section 48 and at that stage, the requisite information in Form 16A has to be filed. Thus, we are only deferring the stage at which information under Form 16A is to be filed. We request the High Court to address the question of jurisdiction first. However, the impugned order passed by the High Court restraining the appellant from creating any third party interest or parting with the possession of Westin Hotel, Rajarhat, Kolkata is affirmed.
3
5. With the aforesaid clarification and modification in the impugned order, the appeals stand disposed of. The restraint order passed by the High Court shall continue till the decision is taken by the High Court.
.......................J. [ ARUN MISHRA ] .......................J. [ M. R. SHAH ] New Delhi;
JULY 19, 2019.
4
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16102 OF 2019 (Arising out of the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in OMP (EFA) (Comm) No. 5/2019) SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Appellant(s) VERSUS RISHIMA SA INVESTMENTS LLC (MAURITIUS) & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. (IA No. 104728/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/ FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH SLP (C) No. 15986 OF 2019 (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.100302/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 19-07-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amit K. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Yash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Harshad Pathak, Adv.
Mr. N. K. Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Karun Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Sounak Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.
Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajwani, Adv.
Mr. Prabhav Shroff, Adv.
5
Ms. Vatsala Rai, Adv.
Mr. Parth Chopra, Adv.
Ms. Rajshree, Adv.
Mr. Vinayak Malhotra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (JAGDISH CHANDER) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)