Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. We acknowledge and agree that such invocation of the pledge over such Pledged Reference Entity 1 Shares shall, if undertaken by the Debenture Trustee in the manner described above, be deemed to have been undertaken at the express request of the Obligors, and that the Obligors hereby expressly waive all rights, claims and remedies as may be available to the Obligors, in law or in equity, in respect of any such invocation of the pledge over such Pledged Reference Entity 1 Shares other than the Obligors' right to (a) seek a re-

Authorised Signatory For Salient Financial Solutions Limited Sd/-

Authorised Signatory For Vistra ITCL (India) Limited‖

17. All Outstanding Amounts, Mr. Nayar points out, were required to be paid on or before 6th July, 2019, in which respect, too, the petitioner defaulted. This led to the issuance of an ―Event of Default‖ notice, followed by notices under Section 176 of the Contract Act, calling on the petitioner to remedy the defaults, failing which sale of the pledged CGP shares was mooted as a possibility. The invocation of the pledged CGP shares, therefore, Mr. Nayar points out, was preceded by notices under Section 176 of the Contract Act, following which the pledge was invoked on 16th September, 2019.

34. According to the respondent, the invocation, by the Respondent, of the pledged CGP shares, took place because of continuous default, on the part of the petitioner, in maintaining the Required Security Cover, in terms of Clause 3.4 of the Debenture Trust Deeds. The respondent also alleges that the petitioner has suppressed, from this Court, the communications, between the petitioner and the respondent, evidencing this fact, and that, in order to conceal the real reason, for invocation of the pledged CGP shares, the petitioner has created a Machiavellian smokescreen, of a fraudulent conspiracy, between KKR, Mr. Narayan Seshadri and Vaish & Co., whereby the shares of CGP were, in the first instance, transferred to the DEMAT account of the Respondent, their value artificially depressed and, thereafter, purchased, by KKR and L & T themselves from the open market, at throwaway prices. In actual fact, the respondent would seek to contend, the ―transfer‖ of the pledged CGP shares to the DEMAT account of Respondent was, actually, a transfer simplicitor, accompanied by an ―oral agreement‖ - the existence of which the respondent emphatically denies - but was by way of invocation, of the pledged shares, in accordance with Clauses 9.1 to 9.3 of the Debenture Trust Deeds, as the failure, on the part of the petitioner, to maintain the requisite Security Cover constituted an ―Event of Default‖, within the meaning of Clause 1.1.41 of the Debenture Trust Deeds, read with Schedule 3 thereto.

35. That, however, is a dispute which must, necessarily, fall to the the arbitrator, or arbitral tribunal, which would, some day, be seized of the matter. I refrain from expressing any opinion thereon, lest the arbitral proceedings - if and when they take place - are prejudiced. Suffice it to state, for the purposes of the present petition, that no interim direction can, in the above circumstances, be issued, to transfer the pledged CGP shares into the DEMAT account of the petitioner, as all the shares stand invoked, and a majority thereof stands sold in the open market, wherefrom they were purchased by KKR and L & T. Invocation of the pledged CGP shares has taken place, the shares have been dematerialised, sold in the open market, and purchased by KKR and L & T; and Section 9 of the 1996 Act, howsoever wide its amplitude, cannot justify setting the clock back to a stage anterior to the invocation of the pledge, by the Respondent, which took place as far back as in March, 2019.