Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The essence of the challenge to the impugned order is that it has been made without application of judicial mind, without application of established principles of law and without appreciating the conclusions contained in status report/action taken report dated 'nil', stated to have been filed on 23.07.2020 by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).

5. The genesis of the disputes are investments of about US Dollars 225 million and loans of about US Dollars 39.3 million made/extended by M/s Actis Consumer Grooming Products Limited, Mauritius ('ACGPL', for short) in/to M/s Tigaksha Metallics Private Limited (India) and other dropdown subsidiaries and connected corporate entities around the world; resulting in a 41.7% shareholding with 82% voting rights in M/s Super-Max Luxembourg S.a.r.l. From such investment and loan transactions, certain disputes have arisen between the parties and one M/s Super-Max Mauritius ('SMM', for short) which is stated to be the balance 59.83% shareholder. Another entity with a central role in the disputes is M/s Super-Max Personal Care Pvt. Ltd., which is a subsidiary of SMM. The individual petitioners in these petitions are the promoters, shareholders, directors and principal officers of the various entities connected with the dispute. As is the wont, multiple civil proceedings have been filed arising from such disputes; and a chart summarising such proceedings has been filed alongwith the petitions. According to the petitioners, W.P. (CRL.) 1335/2020 & conn. matters. page 4 of 25 some 19 proceedings are pending between the parties at various stages before the London Court of International Arbitration, the High Court of England & Wales, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, Bombay High Court, National Company Law Tribunal (Mumbai), Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, and the Dubai Court of First Instance. These proceedings, arising from investments made by ACGPL, are stated to be in relation to its shareholding and voting rights in the various entities. Suffice it to say however, that the full details of the labyrinth of corporate entities, their inter se shareholdings, and of the disputes between various parties are not required to be examined in the present proceedings; and only a brief overview is necessary, especially at this stage.

(d) that the complainant first made complaint dated 20.06.2019 with PS:EOW, whereupon a thorough preliminary inquiry was conducted by the EOW for a period of about 06 months and a status report/action taken report was filed on 23.07.2020; but the impugned order has been passed without at all considering or appreciating the contents of the status report/action taken report, which report records the following conclusion :

"Subject : [EXT] Urgent Request To Stay All Proceedings In LCIA Arbitration No 183927 & Consider THE Ld Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi W.P. (CRL.) 1335/2020 & conn. matters. page 8 of 25 Order & Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police (EOW) FIR.
***** "... There is, therefore, a clear and complete overlap of issues between the court ordered police investigation and the present arbitration. In this background, the case being one of "serious fraud", the same may not be capable of arbitration and is one that requires investigation by the police authorities /criminal justice system in India."

(g) that as per the verdict of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. 2 , a preliminary inquiry is mandated inter-alia in commercial matters; but in this case the learned Magistrate omitted to consider the fact that after such preliminary inquiry, the EOW has concluded that the allegations in the complaint could not be substantiated;