Tribunal Clarifies Settlement Terms, Directs Banks to Provide Clarifications on Discrepancy

The Tribunal addressed compliance with an earlier order for affidavit-in-reply and the interpretation of OTS settlement terms. A discrepancy in the settlement amount claimed by the Petitioner and offered by the Respondent led to the necessity of additional documents for adjudication. ICICI Bank and Standard Chartered Bank were directed to provide clarifications, with senior officials and counsels required to appear. The parties were urged to consider settlement possibilities, and a final hearing was scheduled to expedite the resolution of the long-pending matter.

---

---

Issues:
1. Compliance with earlier order regarding affidavit-in-reply.
2. Interpretation of OTS settlement terms.
3. Discrepancy in settlement amount claimed by Petitioner and offered by Respondent.
4. Necessity of additional documents for proper adjudication.
5. Direction for filing of clarifications by ICICI Bank and Standard Chartered Bank.
6. Requirement of appearance by senior officials and counsels of banks.
7. Timely submission of affidavits by parties and banks.
8. Possibility of settlement between the parties.
9. Listing for final hearing.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the Tribunal acknowledging the presence of both parties and hearing their arguments in compliance with an earlier order for filing an affidavit-in-reply. The Respondents have detailed the terms of an OTS settlement involving the waiver of certain shares and payments made to Standard Chartered Bank.

2. The Petitioner, on the other hand, has filed an additional affidavit claiming entitlement to a specific amount based on the purchase of shares from ICICI Bank. A discrepancy arises regarding the consideration of 25% of the face value of the shares in the OTS settlement, leading to a disagreement between the parties on the settlement amount.

3. Both sides express difficulty in reaching a settlement due to the substantial gap in the claimed and offered amounts. The Tribunal notes the need for additional documents related to the sale of shares, decisions by lenders, and payments to Standard Chartered Bank for a comprehensive review.

4. Emphasizing the urgency of resolving the matter after a decade, the Tribunal directs ICICI Bank and Standard Chartered Bank to submit clarifications and relevant documents by a specified date. Senior officials from the banks are required to appear for the next hearing along with their counsels for further clarification.

5. The Petitioner and Respondent are instructed to inform the banks about the order for filing affidavits and appearances. The Registry is tasked with issuing notices to the banks promptly. The Respondent Company is directed to submit all relevant documents and letters related to the shares and settlement by a specified deadline.

6. Both parties are encouraged to engage in discussions for a possible settlement. Directors or senior officials familiar with the shares are permitted to involve their counsels to provide necessary insights during the proceedings to expedite the resolution of the long-pending matter.

7. The Tribunal schedules the final hearing along with all interlocutory applications for a specific date, indicating the intention to conclude the matter promptly.

---