Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"In view of the family settlement dated 28/4/07 arrived at between the parties a copy of which is attached with the joint application, the petition is disposed of in terms of settlement."

5. Respondent No.1 Shri Vilas Gupta, thereafter, filed CA 42/2008 under Section 634A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, before the CLB, for enforcement of the aforesaid order dated 1st May, 2007, passed by the CLB, disposing of CP 31/2007. The said application was disposed of, by the CLB, vide a detailed order dated 20th August, 2014. The CLB adopted the view that its earlier order, dated 1st May, 2007 was "to be construed to be an order permitting withdrawal of the petition in view of the clear and unambiguous purport of CA 157/2007". In view thereof, the CLB held that nothing remained, in the order dated 1st May, 2007, of which enforcement, under Section 634A of the Companies Act, could be sought. Para 12 of the order dated 20th August, 2014, which so holds, read thus:

13. Mr. Yogesh Jagia, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 opposes the petition. He submits that the order dated 1st May, 2007 (supra), passed by the CLB was, by virtue of Section 634A of the Companies Act, 1956, an executable decree and that the MFS stood merged in the said order. Once such merger had taken place, and the order resulting in such merger was executable as a decree, Mr. Jagia submits that no dispute, referable to arbitration under Clause 3.15 of the MFS, could be said to survive. In fact, submits, Mr. Jagia, CA 42/2008 was preferred, by Respondent No.1 before the CLB, seeking execution of the order dated 1st May, 2007, whereupon the CLB had appointed a facilitator, to facilitate the execution of the order and efforts, at implementing the covenants of the MFS continued for over a period of five years, from 2008 to 2013. Mr. Jagia submits that in Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 751. See also BSNL v. Telephone Cables Ltd., (2010) 5 SCC 213. Refer to PSA Mumbai Investments Pte. Ltd. v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, (2018) 10 SCC 525 fact, over the course of this period, the covenants of the MFS were implemented to a large extent.

14. Apropos the order dated 20th August, 2014 (supra), passed by the CLB, Mr. Jagia submits that, assailing the decision, in the said order, to treat the earlier order of 1st May, 2007 as one of unconditional withdrawal of CP 31/2007, Co A (SB) 47/2014 has been preferred before this Court, which is presently pending. He, therefore, submits that adjudication of the present petition should either await the outcome of Co A (SB) 47/2014, or that his submission, that the order dated 1st May, 2007 (supra) passed by the CLB was an executable decree and that, therefore, no scope for referring the disputes between the parties to arbitration under Clause 3.15 of the MFS existed, should be accepted and the present petition dismissed as not maintainable. He has relied on para 4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Mohan Sharma and Others v. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd.and Others.8 Mr. Jagia has also relied on an order dated 23rd May, 2012, passed by the CLB in CP 83(ND)/2009 which, though a cognate dispute between some of the parties in this case, involved an interpretation of the order dated 1st May, 2007 (supra) passed by the CLB. Mr. Jagia points out that, in the said order, the CLB had held that the proper course of action to be followed by Respondent No. 1 was to seek enforcement of the order dated 1st May, 2007 under Section 634A of the Companies Act, and not by way of the application filed before the CLB, which was under

15. I have also heard Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. I may observe that Mr. Singhal submitted that he had no objection to the disputes, forming subject matter of this petition, being referred for arbitration to an independent arbitrator, subject to the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being agreeable. Mr. Jagia, however, submits on instructions that his clients were adhering to the view that no arbitrable dispute existed, in view of the order dated 1st May, 2007 (supra), passed by the CLB, which constituted an executable decree under Section 634A of the Companies Act. As such, the suggestion, by Mr. Singhal, was not acceptable to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.