TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... preliminary objection on the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition. Vide order dated 30.05.2019, this Court had expressed a prima facie view that the Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and had directed Respondent No.1 to file an affidavit of its assets in Form 16A Appendix E of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and had restrained the Respondents from creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the hotel in question. The order was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5696-5697/2019. While affirming the injunction granted by this Court, Supreme Court directed that the question of jurisdiction be decided first and the direction to file an affidavit of assets would be subsequent thereto, if the Court came to a conclusion that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. In this context and pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, the present petition was taken up for hearing on the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition. Arguments were heard by the Court limited to the jurisdiction and accordingly, judgment was reserved only on the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17.2 Consequence of default (a). Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default by the Promoter or Promoter 1, the Investor shall have the right to sell all the Equity Shares and other Investor Securities of the Company owned or controlled by the Investor and its Affiliates and the Promoter shall have the obligation to buy all the Equity Shares and other Investor Securities of the Company owned or controlled by the Investor and its Affiliates at a price being an amount equivalent to the outstanding Investor Total Investment (i.e. the pro-rata Investor Total Investment representing the Equity Shares and other Investor Securities subscribed by the Investor under this Agreement and still held by the Investor at the time of the Investor exercising this right) plus an IRR of 25% compounded annually on the outstanding Investor Total Investment and the sale and purchase of the Equity Shares and other Investor Securities of the Investor shall be completed within 30 (thirty) days from the date of exercise by the Investor of its right (by issuing a written notice to this effect) to sell such Equity Shares and securities to the Promoter. Provided that if the Investor has received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceable in whole or in part by any court or tribunal, Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited shall pay to Rishima SA Investments LLC the sum of INR 160.2 crores pursuant to clause 14.2 of Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement (or such lesser sum as shall be sufficient to satisfy the awards in (1) and (2) above, after taking account of any amounts paid by Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited pursuant thereto) upon delivery by Rishima SA Investments LLC to Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited of executed transfers and any other title documents relating to its shares in Shristi Hotel Private Limited." 8. Petitioner seeks enforcement and execution of the above mentioned directions in the present petition alongwith certain other reliefs detailed in the prayer clause of the petition. At this stage, it is important to note certain developments which occurred during the pendency of the present petition. The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (NCLT) by an order dated 12.08.2020 admitted a petition seeking commencement of insolvency proceedings against Respondent No.2 at the instance of a purported operational creditor, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their right to any form of recourse in so far as such waiver can validly be made. 11. Since Respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction and the Supreme Court has directed to decide the said issue at the threshold, it is necessary to capture the objections taken by Respondent No.1 in this context. Mr. Amit K. Mishra learned counsel for Respondent No.1 arguing in support of the objections contends that the subject-matter of the partial Award is specific performance of Clauses 14.2 and 17.2 pertaining to Put Options. Under Clause 28.12 of the SSHA, parties had specifically agreed that only a Court of competent jurisdiction can decree a suit for specific performance and that Court can only be the court at Kolkata for the following reasons : (a). Respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Kolkata; (b). Sarga is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Kolkata; (c). The SSHA under which the contractual arrangement between the parties was crystallized, was executed at Kolkata; (d). On account of the arra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce' of contractual obligations under Clauses 17.2 and 14.2 of the SSHA. 13. Elaborating the argument, learned counsel relies on the statement of claim in which the prayers, relevant to the present controversy were as follows :- "172. xxx xxx xxx 4. With respect to clauses 17 and 14 (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) an order for specific performance of the First Respondent's obligation to pay the price set out in clause 17.2(a) of the SSHA, being US$70.5 million; (iii) in the alternative, a direction that the First Respondent should pay to the Claimant the maximum price permissible under Indian law, being US$ 24.86 million, and a further sum of US$ 45.6 million as damages/compensation for the Respondents failure to perform their obligations under clause 17." 14. Considering the said prayers, the Tribunal in para 283 observed as follows :- "283. In the view of the Tribunal, the consequence of the application of the principle in Sudbrook Estates Ltd. V. Eggleton is that the remedy is not damages equivalent to the fair value less present value, but an order, by way of specific performance, for payment of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the arguments of the Revenue that the situs of the CGP share was situated in the place (India) where the underlying assets stood situated. x x x 347. Situs of the CGP share stands where, is the next question. Law on situs of share has already been discussed by us in the earlier part of the judgment. Situs of shares situates at the place where the company is incorporated and/or the place where the share can be dealt with by way of transfer. The CGP share is registered in the Cayman Islands and materials placed before us would indicate that the Cayman Islands law, unlike other laws does not recognise the multiplicity of registers. Section 184 of the Cayman Islands Act [Ed.: Reference is to the provisions of the Companies Law (2007 Revision) (Law 13 of 2006) of the Cayman Islands which has since been replaced by the Companies Law (2011 Revision).] provides that the company may be exempt if it gives to the Registrar, a declaration that "operation of an exempted company will be conducted mainly outside the Island". Section 193 of the Cayman Islands Act [Ed.: Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion defined 'Court' as the Court 'having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Award if the same had been subject-matter of a suit'. However, by the 2015 Amendment, this was substituted by the expression 'having original jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitral Award if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit on its original civil jurisdiction'. The Amended Explanation refers to a Court that has territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute / issues forming the subject-matter of the foreign Award sought to be enforced, as opposed to any other High Court within whose jurisdiction the Award-debtor may have assets. Any other interpretation, it is argued, will render the Amendment redundant and the interpretation suggested by the Petitioner would render the phrase 'questions forming the subject-matter of the Arbitral Award' as otiose. Learned counsel relies on the judgments in the case of Davis vs. Sebastian, (1999) 6 SCC 604 and State of Rajasthan vs. Leela Jain and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1296 in support of the proposition that words in a Statute must be given their natural ordinary meaning and nothing should be omitted, added or delete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., arguing in response to the first preliminary objection submits that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and enforce the partial Award. The Award is a Foreign Award under the New York Convention and thus its enforcement would be governed by Part-II of the Act. Attention of the Court is drawn to Explanation to Section 47 which defines 'Court'. 24. Mr. Nayar argues that though it is not disputed that Respondent No.1 has its registered office in Kolkata but it is equally true that it holds assets within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Petitioner seeks to enforce the partial Award against the assets of Respondent No.1 which are within the jurisdiction of this Court based on the following : (a). Respondent No.1 holds shares in a subsidy known as Shristi Urban Infrastructure Development Ltd. (SUIDL), whose registered office is in Delhi. Therefore, Respondent No.1's assets being shares of SUIDL are sited in Delhi; (b). Respondent No.1 claims to work for gain in Delhi, having an office at D-2, 5th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, Saket, New Delhi; and (c). Petitioner has averred that Respondent No.1 has a bank a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015 Amendment to the Act, the position that the Award holders can enforce the Award where the judgment debtors assets are sited is no longer valid, Mr. Nayar argues that the said argument is based on the understanding of Respondent No.1 that the Amendment has the effect of making the Section 2(1)(e) 'Court' and Section 47 'Court' the very same Court, however, this understanding is flawed and contrary to the provisions of law. It is submitted that according to Respondent No.1, 'questions forming the subject-matter of the Award', as used in Section 47, cannot mean the relief granted, as no question can arise in relation to it. Thus, the questions forming will relate back to the cause of action i.e. breach of the contractual provisions, resulting in the Award. Premised on this interpretation, it is argued by Respondent No.1 that the Calcutta High Court would be the Court of jurisdiction since it is that court which will be entitled to entertain a suit in relation to questions forming subject-matter of the arbitration i.e. contractual breaches by Companies registered in Kolkata viz. Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 29. Mr. Nayar submits that this argument by the Respondent obliterates the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1, cannot be read out of context and have to be read in the background of the direction to make payment. Respondent No.1 in fact understands the direction and therefore in its pleadings in the Set-Aside proceedings before the Singapore High Court, the Chief Financial Officer of SIDCL had stated on an affidavit that SIDCL's liability is one for payment of monies. 32. Mr. Nayar argues that the mere fact that the Petitioner had approached the Calcutta High Court by filing an application under Section 9 of the Act, cannot take away the jurisdiction of this Court to enforce the partial Award. Section 42 of the Act on which Respondent No.1 has placed reliance is inapplicable to Part-II of the Act and this has been so held by the High Court of Bombay in Eitzen Bulk A/S vs. Ashapura Minachem Ltd., 2011 SCC Online Bom 1329 and this view was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 33. On the aspect of the moratorium with respect to Respondent No.2 and non impleadment of the IRP in the present proceedings, it is argued by learned Senior Counsel that since the Petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that it is not proceeding against Respondent No.2 at this stage, this objection is irrelevant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its shareholdings in different Companies, including a commercial space in the Westin Hotel, without the Petitioner's approval which is required under the SSHA. The risk of the Petitioner has aggravated with the insolvency petition having been admitted against Respondent No.2, the owner of Westin Hotel, which was the only security available with the Petitioner. It is thus prayed that the present petition be entertained as this Court has the territorial jurisdiction over the assets of Respondent No.1 which are indisputably located at Delhi. 36. Arguing in rejoinder, Mr. Mishra reiterates the submissions made in support of the preliminary objection as well as the pendency of the IBC proceedings. Learned counsel distinguishes the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner. With respect to the judgments in Trammo (supra) and Glencore (supra), it is submitted that the said cases pertain to arbitral Award whose subject-matter is money in form of damages and not specific performance of the contractual obligations. In both the cases, the Courts were not called upon to interpret the phrase 'questions forming' in the Amended Explanation to Section 47 of the Act. 37. I have heard learned s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in other cases, in the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of Courts subordinate to such High Court.)" 40. I may at this stage usefully allude to the various International Conventions which were brought in to deal with problems faced in International Arbitration particularly relating to recognition and enforcement of an Arbitral Award made in one country by the Courts of other countries. The first such International Convention was the Geneva Protocol on arbitration clauses, 1923, popularly known as '1923 Protocol'. This, however, proved to be inadequate and thus, the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1927 was brought in. India became a signatory to both the Conventions. To give effect to the 1923 Protocol and the 1927 Convention, the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 was enacted in India. However, there were certain limitations in its application and in 1953 the International Chamber of Commerce proposed a new treaty which finally led to the adoption of the Convention on the recognition and enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards at New York in 1958, popularly known as the New York Convention. This came into ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;" We are of the opinion, the term "subject-matter of the arbitration" cannot be confused with "subject-matter of the suit". The term "subject-matter" in Section 2(1)(e) is confined to Part I. It has a reference and connection with the process of dispute resolution. Its purpose is to identify the courts having supervisory control over the arbitration proceedings. Hence, it refers to a court which would essentially be a court of the seat of the arbitration process. In our opinion, the provision in Section 2(1)(e) has to be construed keeping in view the provisions in Section 20 which give recognition to party autonomy. Accepting the narrow construction as projected by the learned counsel for the appellants would, in fact, render Section 20 nugatory. In our view, the legislature has intentionally given jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and the courts where the arbitration takes place. This was necessary as on many occasions the agreement may provide for a seat of arbitration at a place which would be neutral to both the parties. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the subject-matter of the Award had arisen within the jurisdiction of the said Court. The Court was thus called upon to decide the interplay between the provisions of Section 2(1)(e) and Explanation to Section 47 of the Act. The Court analyzed the meaning of the expression 'subject-matter of the award' and posed a question whether that would mean also subject-matter of the arbitration proceedings and held that the two provisions deal with two different aspects. Under Section 2(1)(e) the expression 'subject-matter of arbitration' means and refers to subjects concerning arbitration and would include contracts. Subject-matter of an Award cannot include a contract as adjudication in respect of the claims under the contract has been done and resulted into an Award. The subject-matter of the Award could therefore be construed only to mean the relief finally awarded by the Award. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Brace Transport (supra). Relevant para in Tata International (supra) is as follows :- "4. We then come to the issue as to the meaning of the expression subject matter of the Award and whether that would mean also subject matter of the arbitration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubject matter of the award and the subject matter of the arbitration agreement are two different and distinct expressions. In respect of a foreign award, if the expression subject matter of the award was to mean the same thing as the subject matter of the arbitration agreement, in most cases there would be no Court available where the award could be enforced as the entire cause of action in respect of the subject matter of the arbitration could be the foreign country. Merely because in the instant case, the contract was entered into in India cannot result in a different interpretation. The expression as the explanation itself permits forum hunting if that expression can be used. After considering all these provisions a similar view was taken in Arbitration Petition Lodg. No. 427 of 2001 in the case of Naval Gent Marline Ltd. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd. and Ors., decided on 5th July, 2001 in which at the ad interim stage, apart from other issues, the issue as to the meaning of the expression "subject matter of the award" was in issue and has been similarly answered. In the instant case, defendants do not have their office or carry on business within the jurisdiction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ward is a money award (analogous to a money decree in a litigation) or a declaration or other relief with regard to a contract or a property. The award would have to be filed for its enforcement in a Court which would be able to enforce that award. It would be futile to file it where a cause of action may have arisen, if the respondent would have no properties in that jurisdiction. Similarly it would be of little use to file it where the respondent resided or carried on business. It would have to be filed where the respondent would have properties, movable or immovable, which could be attached and sold in execution of the award." 46. The Act of 1996 underwent an Amendment by the Amendment Act No.3 of 2016 with effect from 23.10.2015 (hereinafter referred to as '2015 Amendment'). The genesis of the said Amendment are the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 246th Report and therefore to understand the effect of the Amendment, it would be profitable to refer to certain paragraphs of the Report, which are relevant to the present issue and are as follows :- "38. Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Act"), contained in Part I of the Act, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to be the juridical seat; however, in line with international practice, it was observed that the arbitral hearings may take place at a location other than the seat of arbitration. The distinction between "seat" and "venue" was, therefore, recognized. In such a scenario, only if the seat is determined to be India, Part I would be applicable. If the seat was foreign, Part I would be inapplicable. Even if Part I was expressly included "it would only mean that the parties have contractually imported from the Arbitration Act, 1996, those provisions which are concerned with the internal conduct of their arbitration and which are not inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the [foreign] Procedural Law/Curial Law." The same cannot be used to confer jurisdiction on an Indian Court. However, the decision in BALCO was expressly given prospective effect and applied to arbitration agreements executed after the date of the judgment. 41. While the decision in BALCO is a step in the right direction and would drastically reduce judicial intervention in foreign arbitrations, the Commission feels that there are still a few areas that are likely to be problematic. (i) Wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the Award. The object behind the Amendments were evidently to provide an efficacious remedy to a party seeking interim relief against the other party whose assets are located in India and there is a likelihood that the other party may dissipate its assets in the near future. 48. Post the 2015 Amendment the controversy relating to the 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and 'Court' under Explanation to Section 47 of the Act again came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in Trammo (supra). The Petitioner in the said case being a holder of a Foreign Arbitral Award sought interim relief by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act pending enforcement and execution of the Award. The Respondent raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, referring to the amended provisions of the Act. The exact issue that fell for consideration before the Bombay High Court was whether the 'Court' as referred to in Section 9 of the Act, in case of International Commercial Arbitration which takes place outside India, is a Court as defined under Section 2(1)(e) or as defined in the Expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so held, the next question that begs an answer is what is the subject-matter of the Award in question in the present case i.e. the relief finally awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal. Counsel for Respondent No.1 has raised a serious contention on this issue. While the Petitioner claims that the relief granted by the award in its favour is nothing more than a direction to pay money and is thus a money award, Respondent No.1 asserts that the directions are in the nature of specific performance of the contract. As noted above, the subject-matter of the Award would determine the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in as much as in case the relief is in the nature of a money Award, the place of location of assets of the judgment debtor would give jurisdiction to the Court, while in case it is in the nature of specific performance then the considerations of the situs of the shares, registered office of the judgment debtor, etc. as argued by Respondent No.1 would be the relevant factors. Counsel for Respondent No.1 has conceded fairly during the course of arguments that in case the Award is a money Award, this Court would have jurisdiction as then the place of location of the assets of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard can be filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction asset/money is located. Relevant part of the judgment is as follows :- "...It is therefore, clear that in respect of an award for money, subject matter can be said to be money. In other words, therefore, petition for enforcement of the foreign award can be filed in the Court where the party may have money. This is important consideration considering a party need not be tied down as in the case of Part I where the subject matter is the subject matter of the arbitration. In other words, if the party has a foreign award in its favour, it can seek to enforce the award in any part of the country where it is sought to be enforced as long as money is available or suit for recovery of money can be filed. In my opinion, therefore, expression subject matter of the award to the explanation under Section 47 is different from the expression subject matter of the arbitration under Section 2(e) of Part I of the Act. A foreign award if allowed to be enforced is a deemed decree. It can be enforced anywhere that the respondents may have money. In other words it is in the nature of forum hunting. The expression subject matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is clear from a reading of the aforesaid provisions defining the Court and the aforesaid two judgments and considering the reason and logic behind the distinction as also the analogous provisions with regard to enforcement of decrees that since the appellant claims that it can execute the award within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court that itself bestows this Court with the territorial jurisdiction, it having within its territorial limits the subject-matter of the award which is money in the form of the bank account. Mr. Dhond on behalf of the appellant contended that it is for the appellant to take its own choice to recover the monies and if the appellant finds that there are no monies in the said account the appellant may be constrained to make another application for enforcement of the award, much like another application for execution of a decree under the Civil Procedure Code wherever another property of the respondent may be found for execution and enforcement of the award. 20. This, therefore, settles the territorial jurisdiction aspect under the application for execution made by the appellant. The notice issued under Order 21 Rule 22 would, therefore, be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held that a party seeking enforcement of an international award will be able to go forum shopping and locate the assets of the losing party for executing the award. Thus it is open to the DH to locate the assets of the losing party that is the judgment debtor which have been found to be in New Delhi in the form of both bank accounts and shares of Spice Communications Ltd. 21. To sum up the conclusions are: (a) the DH holds a foreign arbitral award against the JD. (b) the award grants a sum of $33 million in favour of the decree holder and against the judgment debtor. (c) the JD had bank accounts in Delhi and held shares of a company having a registered office in Delhi. (d) these amounts and shares are undoubtedly assets of the JD company (e) a foreign award is executable as a decree (f) Order XXI Rule 30 of the Code permits the sale of the property of the JD company in execution of a decree." 58. To the same effect is the view taken by the Bombay High Court in a recent decision in Trammo (supra) and the reference to the said decision is significant as judgement has been delivered taking into consideration the 2015 A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon between the parties. Alleging material breaches of the SSHA, such as failure to complete the Project in a timely manner, improper conduct of Board meetings etc., the Petitioner invoked arbitration. Amongst other claims, the Petitioner sought the following reliefs :- "(4) With respect to clauses 17 and 14 (i) an award of the highest sum of the prayers sought below: (ii) an order for specific performance of the First Respondent's obligation to pay the price set out in clause 17.2(a) of the SSHA, being US$70.5 million; (iii) in the alternative, a direction that the First Respondent should pay to the Claimant the maximum price permissible under Indian law, being US$24.86 million, and a further sum of US$45.6 million as damages/compensation for the Respondents failure to perform their obligations under clause 17; (iv) in the further alternative, a direction that the First Respondent should pay to the Claimant damages/compensation equivalent to the price set out in clause 17.2(a) for the Respondents' breach of their obligations under clause 17, being US$70.5 million; (v) damages equivalent to the FMV Price, which amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5, in the letter dated March 16, 2016 (CX-67) which, at paras 2 and 11 "repeats and reiterates" the contents of earlier correspondence including the letters dated September 26, 2014 (CX-39), and November 6, 2014 (CX-40), and at para 8 repeats the specific complaint that there was a breach of clause 17(b)(iv) and there was a failure to complete the Project by December, 2011. The Tribunal would have accepted, if needed, that this later letter was an effective written notice under clause 17. 342. Accordingly, the Tribunal decides that (1) the Claimant is entitled to rely on the Hotel EOD; (2) if there had been an operative force majeure event, it would have lasted for 3 years, 6 months and 20 days (from December 13, 2010 to July 3, 2014); but (3) the Respondents' breach under clause 17(b)(iv) is not excused. xxx xxx xxx 368. The Tribunal concludes that the Claimant has established that there were material breaches, amounting to EODs within clause 17.1(a), in relation to the conduct of meetings, the approval of accounts and the appointments of auditors. 369. It follows, considering both the Hotel EOD and the Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plus 25% IRR. The direction to the Petitioner to return the title documents, was only a consequential direction once the shares were sold to Respondent No.1 and the money was received by the Petitioner. 64. Very recently the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4453 of 2009 decided on 07.01.2019 has reiterated the settled principles of law and the material questions which are required to be gone into for grant of relief of specific performance. Relevant paras are as follows :- "10. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... public domain, Respondent No.1 appears to hold shares in a subsidiary known as Shristi Urban Infrastructure Development Ltd., whose registered office is at Delhi. Additionally, Respondent No.1 has offices in New Delhi as is evident from the letter dated 26.05.2019 where the address of Delhi has been mentioned by Respondent No.1 as its office address. Petitioner has also alleged that Respondent No.1 has bank accounts in Delhi and has also during the course of arguments relied on a diagrammatic representation showing the structure of the parties involved in the present petition and which has been scanned and placed in the earlier part of the judgment. Relevant para is as under :- "(w). This Hon'ble High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of this Petition. Respondent No.1 (against whom the Tribunal has, inter alia, passed a direction for payment of monies) has assets within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner submits that on the basis of information available in the public domain, Respondent No.1 appears to hold shares in a subsidiary known as Shristi Urban Infrastructure Development Ltd., whose registered address is D-2, 5th floor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 4 and 5, which are extracted hereunder for ready reference :- "4. I further state that, solely in view of the moratorium imposed by the NCLT Order (despite the fact that the foreign partial award dated 30.04.2019 does not endanger, diminish or adversely impact the assets of Respondent No.2) I confirm that the Petitioner it is not pursuing the above petition against Respondent No.2 herein pending the moratorium, without prejudice to its rights, claims and contentions, all of which are reserved. 5. I also state that the Petitioner also seeks liberty from this Hon'ble Court to be permitted to initiate / continue proceedings against Respondent No.2 with regard to the subject matter of the present proceedings (i.e. enforcement and execution of the foreign partial award dated 30.04.2019) at the appropriate time." 70. It is evident from a reading of the affidavit that at this stage the Petitioner is not proceeding against Respondent No.2. Although it may be completely irrelevant at this stage, however, the Court prima facie finds merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the shareholding of the Petitioner in Respondent No.2 is an asset of the Petitioner and Sec....