Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.8 On or about 10 January 2011, pursuant to this deed of settlement, sat arbp 167-2015.doc the escrow arrangement was acknowledged by Anil Harish of M/s. D.M. Harish & Co., who was the escrow agent, in a letter of escrow of the same date. On the same day, i.e. 10 January 2011, the Petitioner proceeded to perform his obligations under the deed of settlement inter alia (i) by ratifying Placement Instruction in terms of clause 5.1 of the deed of settlement; (ii) by writing a letter to EOW in terms of clause 2 of the deed of settlement; (iii) by executing an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the Respondent in terms of clause 5.2 of the deed of settlement; (iv) by issuing a no objection letter to Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd. (solicitors of SCB) to act in furtherance of Placement Instruction in terms of clause 5.1(a) of the deed of settlement; (v) by issuing an irrevocable consent letter to the Board and shareholders of Atlas to sell shares of MSM held by Atlas in terms of clause 5.5 of the deed of settlement; (vi) by writing a letter to the board of Atlas resigning as a director in terms of clause 5.4 of the deed of settlement; and (vii) by releasing all claims in Grandway and against the Respondent as a shareholder or otherwise in terms of clause 5.3 of the deed of settlement.

2.9 In pursuance of the Petitioner's letter dated 10 January 2011 to EOW, requesting for unconditional withdrawal of the complaint, on 13 January 2011 EOW addressed a communication to the Petitioner informing him that the enquiry had been closed. Upon receipt of EOW letter dated 13 January 2011, the escrow agent released unto the Petitioner the first escrow cheque held by him in the sum of USD 1,500,000. The escrow agent continued to hold the other undated cheque in the sum of USD 2,000,000 pending sale of shares of MSM by Atlas.

2.16 On 10 November 2014, the learned arbitrator passed his award. In his award, which is impugned in the present petition, the learned arbitrator held that the Petitioner had committed breach of the deed of settlement, and though the deed of settlement was not terminated and continued to be valid and subsisting between the parties, the arbitrator awarded damages of USD 3.5 million to the Respondent by, firstly, directing the Petitioner to return the sum of USD 1.5 Million and, secondly, declaring that the Petitioner was not entitled to USD 2,000,000 lying in escrow and thirdly, directing the escrow agent to return the escrow cheque in the sum of USD 2,000,000 to the Respondent.

26 The petition, thus, succeeds. The impugned award is set aside.

27 In accordance with the statement made by learned Counsel for the Escrow Agent before this court on 6 August 2012 in Arbitration Petition No.853 of 2012, the Escrow Agent may now handover the cheque held by him in escrow to the Petitioner but not before six weeks from today. Since I have already given time of six weeks to the Escrow Agent to hand over the cheque, there is no need for a separate stay order. In the meantime, during these six weeks, the interim attachment ordered by this court on 16 April 2018 of the shares held by the Petitioner shall continue to operate.