Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The Decree Holder No.1 has filed a short reply to EX.APPL.(OS) 940/2023. In the reply, the Decree Holder submitted that at the outset no settlement and/or satisfaction of the Arbitral Award has taken place. It has been submitted that Judgment Debtor no.1 has not placed any Settlement Agreement whatsoever which records or even contemplates the adjustment/satisfaction of the monies payable under the Arbitral Award which remains unsatisfied till date. It has been submitted that the Decree Holders were only in discussions/negotiations with the Judgement Debtors, and certain forward looking privileged documents were prepared and kept with an escrow agent, i.e., Mr. Jayant Davar. However, there is no document with the Escrow Agent, which shows settlement or any kind of adjustment of the liabilities under the Arbitral Award.

16. The Decree Holder submitted that the execution of any document followed by the very act of placing the said document/instrument in escrow evinces an intent that the document would continue to lie in escrow until certain conditions which are precedent to the enforceability of the document come to be fulfilled. Respondent stated that only upon the performance of such certain conditions a document placed in escrow becomes an absolute deed. However, if such conditions are not performed, such documents do not become valid. It has further been submitted that any document which has been executed or exchanged between the parties during a negotiation process, is a privileged document, and the same cannot be shared with anyone without the express consent of the other party. It has been submitted that the present application has been moved only to derail the enforcement proceedings.

23. In reply to application bearing EX.APPL.(OS) 941/2023 also the Decree Holders stated that no settlement/adjustment had taken place between the parties and the documents sought to be produced for proving the factum of settlement are completely irrelevant to the case at hand. It was further stated that the documents are also privileged as much as it is an acknowledged position that parties had exchanged the documents only during discussions of a prospective settlement to be arrived at.

32. In regard to the contentions of the Decree Holders, that the Supplemental BTA, PPOA, Undertaking and applications for withdrawal of litigations were merely 'forward looking and privileged documents'. Learned senior counsel submitted that aforementioned settlement documents encompass the full and final comprehensive commercial settlement of all disputes which is evident from the language of the Undertaking and the NOC which are duly signed and notarized. It has been submitted that no such understanding of "forward looking documents" is recorded in any of the documents, itself shows that the documents being forward looking is a figment of imagination and an afterthought by the Award Holders. It has further been submitted that the contention of the Award Holders is directly hit by Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. In regard to the contention raised by the Decree Holders that the documents were in escrow, it was submitted that the undertaking records that the settlement documents will be delivered to the parties on 14.04.2023 and therefore, the Undertaking clearly mentions that the documents to be kept with Mr. Jayant Davar only till 14.04.2023 and no other condition was agreed upon. It was stated that no other alleged oral agreement or condition can prevail upon the written, signed and notarized Undertaking which categorically records that documents to be handed over to the parties on 14.04.2023. It has further been submitted that both the Award Holders are commercially sophisticated parties who had signed and executed the aforementioned documents specifically the undertaking recording that the 'parties have arrived at a full and final comprehensive settlement' and now the Award Holders cannot renege out of the settlement (C) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF NON-APPLICANT/DECREE HOLDER: