Delhi High Court - Orders
Roger Shashoua & Others vs Mukesh Sharma & Others on 26 September, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~15 & 16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 88/2020 and I.A. 16586/2010, I.A. 903/2014, I.A.
12734/2017, I.A. 13271/2017, I.A. 13273/2017, I.A. 13341/2021
ROGER SHASHOUA & OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anil Airi, Siri Advocate with Mr.
Gaurav M. Liberhan & Mr. Neeraj
Kumar Gupta, Advs (M-9810955779)
versus
MUKESH SHARMA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Abhinav Hansaria, Mr. Deboshree
Mukherjee, Mr. Arjun Maheshwari,
Ms. Sanya Kunal, Advocate for R-1.
(M-981051459).
Mr. Deepak Kr. Vijay, Mr. Shubham
Shivansh and Mr. Neeru Sharma, Advs.
for R-2. (M:9311179321)
Mr. Deepak Kumar Vijay, Mr. Neeru
Sharma & Mr. Shubham Shivansh,
Advocate for R-3.
16 WITH
+ O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 3/2018 and EX.APPL.(OS) 3127/2022,
EX.APPL.(OS) 3501/2022, I.A. 5000/2018, I.A. 8544/2018
ROGER SHASHOUA & ORS. ..... Decree Holders
Through: Mr. Anil Airi, Siri Advocate with Mr.
Gaurav M. Liberhan & Mr. Neeraj
Kumar Gupta, Advocates
versus
MUKESH SHARMA & ORS. ..... Judgement Debtors
Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Abhinav Hansaria, Mr. Deboshree
Mukherjee, Mr. Arjun Maheshwari,
Ms. Sanya Kunal, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Deepak Kumar Vijay, Mr.
Shubham Shivansh and Mr. Neeru
Sharma, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Deepak Kumar Vijay, Mr. Neeru
Sharma & Mr. Shubham Shivansh,
Advocate for R-3.
O.M.P. (COMM) 88/2020 & O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 3/2018 Page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:27.09.2022
18:08:40
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 26.09.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This matter is being heard by this Court on various dates since 7th January, 2019. Hearings have taken place on 14th February, 2019, 13th March, 2019, 19th July, 2019 and 5th December, 2019. Hearings were however impeded due to the pandemic related lockdowns. Submissions on behalf of parties have recommenced on 2nd February, 2022 and 13th July, 2022 and are yet to be concluded.
3. The background of these matters is that these are two petitions under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "A&C Act"), which this Court is considering for enforcement and execution of two separate foreign awards, a partial final award as to liability dated 5th January, 2010 and the final award dated 5th August, 2011 (hereinafter collectively "Arbitral Awards"). The awards were rendered out of arbitral proceedings between Petitioner No.l, Rodemadan Holdings Limited/Petitioner No.2 (hereinafter "Rodemadan"), Stancroft Trust Limited/Petitioner No.3 (hereinafter "Stancroft"), and Mr. Mukesh Sharma/Respondent No.l (hereinafter "Respondent No. 1"), ITE India Pvt. Ltd./Respondent No.2 (hereinafter "ITE"') and M/s International Trade Expocentre Ltd./Respondent No.3 (hereinafter "ITEC").
4. The arbitration disputes have arisen out of shareholders agreement dated 1st July, 1998 executed between Petitioner No.1, Respondent No.1 and ITEC (with only Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 being referred to as parties) (hereinafter "SHA").
5. These are part-heard matters. Today, further submissions have been O.M.P. (COMM) 88/2020 & O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 3/2018 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:27.09.2022 18:08:40 made by Mr. Akhil Sibal, ld. Sr. Counsel, on behalf of the Respondent No.1.
6. Considering the nature of relief granted by the Arbitral Tribunal, during the course of hearing, the following queries have been put to the ld. Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1:
i) What was the shareholding pattern of ITEC on the date when the arbitral awards were passed i.e., 5th January, 2010 and 5th August, 2011. Whether the shareholding pattern has changed subsequent to the awards and if so, what were the subsequent changes and what is the shareholding pattern as on date?
ii) What is the schedule of payments made by the Respondents to the authorities, for allotment of land in Noida in favour of ITEC?
iii) More than 11 years have passed since the passing of the arbitral award and various legal issues had been raised, leading to the prolonged pendency of these petitions. Whether Respondent No.1 is willing to deposit the sum of Rs.24.75 crores with interest at a reasonable rate, which was admittedly the offer made by the Respondents to the Petitioners for settlement of the disputes?
7. The above aspects shall be addressed on the next date.
8. List on 6th December, 2022 and 7th December, 2022, for conclusion of submissions on behalf of all Respondents. Considering the number of hearings already in these matters, ld. counsels for respondents would endeavour to conclude their submissions on these dates.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 rahul/ms O.M.P. (COMM) 88/2020 & O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 3/2018 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:27.09.2022 18:08:40