Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. One of the main assets of the Kapur family is M/s Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. (Atlas Cycles) in which they are the major shareholders. There are other entities also in which they have a considerable interest.

6. Atlas Cycles has three units at Sonepat (Haryana), Sahibabad (U.P.) and Malanpur (M.P.).

7. The Kapur family agreed, some time in 1999, to split their assets into three groups headed by B.D. Kapur, Jai Dev Kapur and Jagdish Kapur. Pursuant to this decision, they executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 8th January, 1999.

11. For deciding the various applications pending in this case, it is not necessary to advert to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28th August, 2000 or the Terms of Settlement dated 10th September, 2000. Suffice it to say that at the material time, Arun Kapur was managing the Malanpur unit of Atlas Cycles and was also in-charge of the Production, Tool Room, Corporate Law, HRD and Security Department of Atlas Cycles, Sonepat and the functioning of Limrose Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.

12. Some time in March, 2001, Arun Kapur was excluded from the management and affairs of the Malanpur unit of Atlas Cycles. He filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging his exclusion and it appears that despite an interim measure directing status quo on 5th April, 2001 the Board of Directors of Atlas Cycles removed him and his children from the affairs of the Malanpur unit. Arun Kapur then filed a contempt petition alleging violation of the interim measure granted by this Court on 5th April, 2001 but eventually it appears that the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by Arun Kapur was rejected and an appeal against the rejection has since been withdrawn.

48.The only "error" emphasized by learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs during the course of oral arguments was the discrepancy between the draft report and the impugned report with respect to the table appearing in paragraph 2.1 dealing with the Net Assets Value Based Valuation. It was pointed out that there is a considerable difference in the figures that have been given in the two tables.

49. While it is not necessary or even proper to go into the detailed accounts, it may be mentioned that the net assets valuation has been dealt with in detail in Chapter 5 of the impugned report and the detailed computation of the net assets value of each entity has been given in Annexure-1 to Annexure-21 of the impugned report. It is only after a study of Chapter 5 of the impugned report along with 21 annexures that will give the reasons for the discrepancy between the draft report and the impugned report. Suffice it to say for the present, by way of illustration, that one of the additional factors taken into consideration in the impugned report was the adjustment for equalizing the group companies(tm) holding in Atlas Cycles. It appears that the aggregate holding of the family members via some companies such as Milton, Corona, JDSPL and Limrose is different. The members of the Kapur family wanted the various clusters to have the same shareholding in Atlas Cycles via these companies. Accordingly, they planned to gift excess shares held by one faction to the other faction with lesser shares in Atlas Cycles. This had some impact on the net worth attributable to the donor and donee entities. Similarly, some built up area in the Sonepat factory of Atlas Cycles would become redundant after completion of the ongoing settlement. This and other attendant changes pertaining to the Sonepat division would have an impact on the value of the factory building, which was discounted by a redundancy discount of 50%. The net assets value has been also adjusted for a few matters like the proposed VRS costs of the Sonepat division, sales tax benefits available to the Malanpur division, etc.

dusty as prayed for.

73. According to the Plaintiffs, the impugned report has been implemented by the alleged contemnors, including Defendants No.1 to 11 inasmuch as they have divided the family concerns exactly as suggested in the impugned report, the only difference being that the Plaintiffs have been excluded from getting their share of the assets.

74. The Plaintiffs have also relied upon an office order dated 31st August, 2003 issued by Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd., Sonepat concerning the smooth and effective functioning of the company and the setting up of management committees. It is said that this Office Order is proof of implementation of the impugned report.