Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J I.A. 4847/2020 in OMP(I)(COMM) 135/2020 I.A. 4848/2020 in OMP(I)(COMM) 136/2020 I.A. 4849/2020 in OMP(I)(COMM) 137/2020 Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of.

OMP(I)(COMM) 135/2020 OMP(I)(COMM) 136/2020 OMP(I)(COMM) 137/2020

1. The challenge in these petitions is to a Pledge Invocation Notice ('Pledge Invocation Notice' for short) dated June 12, 2020 issued to the petitioners herein and additionally Corporate Guarantee Notice ('Corporate Guarantee Notice' for short) dated June 12, 2020 issued to the petitioners in OMP (I) COMM 136/2020 and in OMP (I) COMM 137/2020.

2. The facts and the issue which falls for consideration in all these three petitions being similar, they are being disposed by this common order.

3. The Prayers made in the petition are the following:

OMP (I) (COMM) 135/2020 "In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
A. Restrain the Respondent No.1 from acting on the Pledge Invocation Notice against the Petitioner, including from invoking the pledge and / or selling the pledged shares in open market, during the pendency of the present Petition and / or conclusion of arbitration proceedings.
A. Restrain the Respondent No.1 from acting on the Pledge Invocation Notice against the Petitioner, including from invoking the pledge and / or selling the pledged shares in open market, during the pendency of the present petition and / or conclusion of arbitration proceedings;
B. Restrain the Respondent No.1 from acting on the Corporate Guarantee Notice against the Petitioner during the pendency of the present Petition and / or conclusion of arbitration proceedings;

65. Dr. Saraf stated, 'fairness and reasonableness' pertain to the propriety of the sale process, namely that the sale of pledged shares is 'honestly and properly done' and that the 'sale proceeds are applied to the debt'. By the Pledge Invocation Notice, respondent No. 1 has invoked the pledge. The exact time and quantity and the tranches in which the shares would be sold is something that respondent No. 1, as legally and contractually entitled would decide considering all factors. He stated, respondent No. 1 is most interested in getting a good price for the shares which would reduce their debt. Respondent No. 1 is an entity operating in the securities market and is equally interested in maximizing the recovery. The petitioners' entire case is built on a mere conjecture that respondent No. 1 would proceed to dump the pledged shares at once in the open market causing the share price to tank. There is no basis for such apprehension. In any case and strictly without prejudice, even assuming without admitting that such prospective sale is 'improperly' conducted, the only remedy available to the pledgor under law is damages.