Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

39. A litigant should always be truthful and honest in court. One who seeks equity must not hide any relevant material. In the present case, the petitioner has violated the undertakings given to the Delhi High Court as also the orders of this Court. The Delhi High Court will deal with the issue in so far as the undertakings made before it are concerned. We have no doubt in our mind that contemnor nos.9 and 10 have also wilfully and contumaciously disobeyed the orders of this Court. What has happened during the period when this matter has been pending in this Court is that the shareholdings of FHHPL, which is wholly owned by OIL and RHC which in turn are controlled by SMS and MMS, have virtually vanished in FHL. FHHPL owns no shares in FHL now. It may be true that IHH Healthcare Bhd. (Malaysian Company) through its actually owned subsidiary Northern TK Venture Pte Ltd. is now the majority stake holder but that is due to allotment of preferential shares. In addition to the preferential shares allotted to them, the shares which were owned by MMS and SMS through their holdings in FHHPL in FHL have vanished into thin air and the only conclusion which we can draw is that this was a well thought out plan to deprive the petitioner from the amounts due to it.

49. Interestingly, the main promoters of RHC and OIL i.e. MMS and SMS were the biggest unit holders in RHT when it was initially incorporated. The statistics of unit holding as on 20.06.2017 of RHT Trust, Singapore shows that SMS, MMS, their family members, FHHPL, FHL and RHC virtually owned the RHT trust. That situation has now changed and now the situation is such that the companies/associations of which MMS and SMS are partners are no longer visibly present and there are other persons who are there. When and how the holdings in RHT trust were transferred by various people is a matter which is required to be gone into.”

2. The Judgment Debtors were given full opportunity to respond and defend their case before this Hon'ble Court. MMS and SMS filed separate replies to the SLP and the Contempt Petition. MMS filed its reply affidavit in SLP dated 13 March 2019 (SLP Vol 54, 55) and SMS filed its reply to SLP on 12 March 2019 (SLP Vol 53). MMS also filed its reply to Contempt Petition (SLP Vol 59). In addition, MMS filed a sur-rejoinder in the Contempt Petition (SLP Vol 65).

SMS also filed a sur-rejoinder in the Contempt Petition (SLP Vol

62). The Petitioner filed a rejoinder-affidavit to the reply of MMS (SLP Vol. 61). The Petitioner in its rejoinder-affidavit explained how MMS and SMS blatantly misled the court by asserting that the banks and financial institutions had acted on their own accord in invoking their right to top-up under pre-existing contractual obligations. Petitioner also showed how the Respondents obstructed the course of justice by falsely asserting that five crore shares had already been kept aside for satisfying the debts of the banks and financial institutions and that a sufficient number of unencumbered shares were available to satisfy and realize the Award. The Respondents never informed the courts of the existence of "pre-signed slips"