Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"CEPL shall return a sum of Rs.75 crores and Rs.4 crores invested by ORE and Athappan respectively, together with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of investment till the date of repayment within a period of 12 months in one or more instalments, commencing from 01.11.2008. While making the payment CEPL, CG Holdings and KCP shall ensure that at least 25% of the amount due is paid in every quarter. CEPL, CG Holdings and KCP are at liberty to make use of the fixed deposit held by CEPL with SBI Erode Main Branch, free of any liens or encumbrances towards refund of the investments of ORE and Athappan. VML shall not alienate or sell any of its immovable properties till full payment is made to ORE, in terms of this order. In the event of any failure to make the repayment within the specified time, CEPL, CG Holdings, KCP and VML will duly convey the immovable properties of VML, namely, 17.15 acres of land in favour of ORE and 7.80 acres of land in favour of Athappan by executing and registering necessary deeds of conveyance in strict compliance with all applicable laws, as consideration for reduction of capital and surrender of the shares of ORE and Athappan, upon which ORE as well as Athappan will deliver the share certificates and blank transfer forms in respect of their holdings in CEPL and the subsidiaries, if any, in favour of CG Holdings and KCP. CEPL is consequently authorized to reduce its share capital and in the meantime, operation of the impugned agreements is suspended to expedite and ensure due completion of the modalities of exit by ORE and Athappan, thereby, bringing to an end the acts complained of in the present proceedings. CEPL shall ensure necessary statutory compliances till the whole process, in accordance with the aforesaid directions, is properly completed. The parties are at liberty to apply in the event of any difficulty in implementation of the smooth exit of ORE and Athappan from CEPL."

Secs.420, 109, 408, 409 r/w 120 IPC 19.04.2007 Kangayem Police, Crime Branch K.C.Palanisamy (1) R.Athappan (2) G.Athappan (3) N.Athappan (4) Prem Watsa (5) Benn Watsa (6) Chandran Ratnaswami (7) Fairfax Financial Holdings (8) Hamblin Watsa Investment Council (9) OARC (10) ORE Complaint was quashed by High Court. SLP No.21069 & 21070/2010 filed by KCP against this order was dismissed on 22.11.2010 Secs.406, 420, 467 r/w. 120B IPC 04.12.2007 Perundurai K.C.Palanisamy (1) Prem Watsa (2) Chandran Ratnaswami (3) R.Athappan (4) Fairfax (5) OARC (6) Hamlin Watsa (7) Benn Watsa Dismissed on 13.03.2007 after examining KCP, two witnesses and his documents Secs.406, 409, 420 r/w 120B IPC 01.06.2007 Perundurai Police Chennaiappan Gounder F/o.K.C.Palanisamy (1) ORE (2) Hamblin Watsa Investment Council (3) ORE (4) Elevate Properties (P) Ltd., (5) R.Athappan (6) Chandran Ratnaswami (7) Nandakumar Athappan (8) Prem Watsa Stayed by the High Court in Crl.O.P.19448 & 19449/2007 on 04.07.2007. The petitions are pending Secs.406, 409, 420, 471 IPC 08.06.2007 Kangayem Police Chennaippan Gounder F/o.K.C.Palanisamy (1) R.Athappan (2) Chandran Ratnaswami (3) OARC (4) Prem Watsa (5) N.Athappan (6) Benn Watsa (7) G.Athappan (8) Samblin Watsa Investment Council (9) ORE (10) Paul Rivett Stayed by the High Court in Crl.O.P.No.20886-20887/2007 on 12.07.2007. The petitions are pending.

70. Request for Arbitration: After raising the dispute in C.P.No.65 of 2005 and also contesting C.P.No.76 of 2005, proposing to initiate arbitration before ICC, on 14.8.2006, C.G.Holdings issued letter to Nandakumar Athappan stating that as per Clause 22 of JVA, C.G.Holdings and Athappan are to jointly appoint an arbitrator. In the said letter, C.G.Holdings proposed the names of Lord Steyn or Sir Anthony Evans as arbitrators and called upon N.Athappan to select any one of them as arbitrator. On 21.8.2006, N.Athappan through his counsel issued a preliminary response stating that as per the Arbitration Clause 22.3 in the JVA he has 45 days time to respond to such a request and also stated that he has no knowledge of both the persons proposed. On 25.8.2006, KCP issued a further letter annexing copy of the Biodata particulars of Lord Steyn or Sir Anthony Evans and stating that if N.AThappan does not revert back within 7 days, he would proceed with initiation of arbitration proceedings. On 2.9.2006, N.Athappan issued a letter stating that in view of the fact that instead of arbitrating, KCP had also initiated C.P.No.65 of 2005 and also defending C.P.No.76 of 2005 on merits and therefore KCP has waived his right to arbitrate and N.Athappan refused for appointing the above stated arbitrators. To the said letter, there was no response from KCP or C.G.Holdings.

71. After receiving the said letter from N.Athappan refusing to submit to arbitration, KCP filed number of criminal complaints as stated in paragraph No.40 between December 2005 to June 2009. CPL, VML and KCP have also filed O.S.No.90 of 2007 before the District Munsif's Court, Kangeyam on the same facts as C.P.No.65 of 2005. After one year, KCP's father  Chenniappan also filed criminal complaints against R.Athappan, Chandran Ratnaswami, OARC and others. One year after Athappans letter stating that KCP and C.G.Holdings had waived their right to arbitrate and while C.P.Nos.65 and 76 of 2005 before the Company Law Board and O.S.No.90 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif, Kangeyam are pending, on 12.9.2007, C.G.Holdings and KCP filed a "Request for Arbitration" before ICC praying for (i) declaration that the JVA is vitiated by misrepresentation on the part of the respondents; (ii) transfer of immovable properties to C.G.Holdings and KCP and (iii) damages against ORE, OARC and Athappans for breach of JVA and/or misrepresentation. On 24.10.2007 the Athappans wrote to ICC requesting time to respond to the "Request for Arbitration". In paragraph 4.1 of their response, Athappans stated that request for extension of time to send the response should not be regarded as submission to the arbitration and saying so, Athappans reserved their rights. On 26.11.2007, Athappans sent a detailed reply to ICC refusing to submit to arbitration and they have also raised preliminary grounds of objection and called upon ICC Court to reject the "Request for arbitration" under Article 6(2) of ICC Rules. By their letter dated 28.11.2007, ORE also responded to the "Request for Arbitration". In Paragraph 1.4 and 1.5 of their response, ORE clearly stated that arbitration has been waived by the conduct of parties and hence Arbitral Tribunal (ICC) does not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. ICC proceeded to constitute the Tribunal. In response to the constitution of Arbitral Tribunal, on 27.12.2007, Athappans sent a further reply to ICC citing various jdugments in support of their contentions and stating that the parties have waived their right to arbitration. In Paragraph 2 of the response, Athappans raised objection to the very initiation of arbitration. However, in Paragraph 4, it was stated that if the Court/ICC is inclined to order that the arbitration has to be proceeded, then to grant Athappans an opportunity to make oral submissions before final decision is arrived at. On 1.2.2008, ICC sent a letter to Athappans stating that it had decided to proceed with the arbitration proceedings and called upon the parties to comment upon the same. By their letter dated 19.2.2008, Athappans clearly stated that they do not submit to the jurisdiction of any Arbitral Tribunal that is appointed by ICC and requested two weeks further time to appropriately respond to the proposed action by ICC. By the letter dated 26.2.2008, ICC granted two weeks time to respond to the decision to proceed with the arbitration. It was thereafter Suit - C.S.No.257 of 2008 came to be filed on 7.3.2008 and interim injunction was obtained restraining C.G.Holdigns and KCP from proceeding with arbitration.